set_wan_web_accessEnable or disable WAN web access to the iKuai router admin interface, allowing remote management or restricting access to the LAN.
开启/关闭外网 Web 访问（从外网访问路由器后台）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | True=允许外网访问, False=仅内网 |
| 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 disclosure burden. It conveys the on/off semantics of the toggle, but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, or the security implication of exposing router management to the WAN. For a security-sensitive mutation, this is a notable 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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler that immediately states the action and its scope. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 described. For a simple 1-parameter toggle this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and a security-relevant effect, more context (auth/permission needs, risk of exposing admin UI) would make it complete.
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?
There is a single boolean parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already defines True=allow external, False=internal only. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: toggling WAN-side Web access, with a parenthetical clarifying it means reaching the router admin panel from the external network. This disambiguates the vague name 'WAN Web Access'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_remote_access_config or set_web_ports, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent is not told how this differs from related remote-access tools (e.g., get_remote_access_config), nor any security warning about exposing the admin panel externally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.