set_hostnameChange the hostname of an iKuai router by providing the new name, allowing network administrators to identify and manage the device clearly.
修改路由器主机名
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a persistent mutation but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, or how it takes effect (e.g., reboot needed). For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification and carries no front-loaded scoping or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool with an undocumented parameter, the definition is far too thin to guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'hostname' parameter. The description only implies that the argument is the new hostname; it adds no format, length, or validation semantics beyond what the name already suggests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('modify') and resource ('router hostname'), so the purpose is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'set_device_name', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Adequate but with a clear differentiation gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_device_name, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.