openwrt-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is overlap between uci_show and uci_get, and file_read_batch may be confused with file_read. Overall, descriptions help clarify the boundaries.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names follow snake_case with domain prefixes (uci_, file_, opkg_, system_, etc.), but verb placement varies: some are noun_verb (file_read, system_reboot) while others are verb_noun (connect_router, list_serial_ports). This mixed pattern is still readable.
Tool Count1/5
With 57 tools, the set is extremely large for an MCP server. While it covers many OpenWrt domains, the sheer number exceeds what is typically manageable and increases selection complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is comprehensive for OpenWrt administration: UCI config, network, WiFi, firewall status, file operations, package management, serial access, and system management. Minor gaps like direct firewall modification are covered by UCI tools and run_command fallback.
Average 3.6/5 across 57 of 57 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and vantage point ('from the router') but does not describe the output, failure behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal for a network diagnostic tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent has no idea what the tool returns (e.g., resolved IP, 'not found' error), which is important for a diagnostic tool. More context about the expected result or interpretation would be necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter 'domain' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform DNS lookup') and the context ('from the router'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like ping_test or network_interfaces, though it could be more precise about what type of DNS query or return value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context 'from the router' implies a diagnostic use case, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states the generic action without disclosing side effects, required privileges, or reversibility, similar to a bare statement that lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Efficient and without fluff, though it could arguably include more useful context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is still under-specified. It omits prerequisites, edge cases, and any behavioral cautions, so it is not fully complete even for a simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (path and mode) with examples, so the description need not add details. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action: 'Change file permissions on the router,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling file operations like file_read or file_delete without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description gives no context about when to use this tool versus other file tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the literal action and omits important details such as whether the list must already exist, how duplicates are handled, or what side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that wastes no words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with behavioral nuances, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the bare minimum. It lacks context about the UCI change workflow (e.g., needing to commit) and fails to mention any behavioral aspects, making it only barely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (path and value), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('add') and the resource ('UCI list option'), which is distinct from related tools like uci_set or uci_del_list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, the need to commit changes afterward, or when adding to a list is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the inherent destructive action ('Delete') and fails to mention that UCI changes are typically staged until a commit, or that deletions might be reversible via uci_revert. It also does not note potential side effects or validation behavior, leaving the agent without critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It efficiently states the purpose without any padding, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. The agent lacks critical context about the UCI commit/rollback lifecycle (e.g., that changes require uci_commit to persist, or that uci_revert can undo them). For a tool that deletes configuration, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect assumptions about immediacy and reversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a 100% description for the single 'path' parameter, including examples ('network.wan2', 'network.lan.dns'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('UCI section or option'), which is specific to the UCI configuration system. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like uci_del_list or uci_revert, which also delete or revert UCI entries. A stronger description might specify it deletes a whole section or a single option, unlike list-item removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uci_del_list (for list entries) or uci_revert (for rolling back changes). The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the scan is read-only, what output format is expected, whether it triggers an active scan, or any side effects. The minimal phrase 'Scan for nearby wireless networks' leaves these important traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and object, achieving maximum conciseness without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about return values, prerequisites, or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'device' parameter, including description and default value. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already handles it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Scan for') and the resource ('nearby wireless networks'). It is distinguishable from siblings like wifi_status by the verb 'scan', which implies discovery of available networks rather than status reporting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 wifi_status or network_interfaces. No prerequisites or use cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral details itself. It only states that a package is installed, omitting side effects like dependency resolution, system modification, or potential need for network connectivity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise but somewhat sparse, so it does not reach the level of a model description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it is a mutating system-level operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-informative. It fails to mention side effects, prerequisites, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is clearly described as 'Package name to install'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('a package via opkg'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like opkg_remove, opkg_update, and opkg_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites such as running opkg_update first. There is no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List available or installed packages' without mentioning whether this involves network access, what output format to expect, sorting behavior, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the act itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. It earns its place without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with only two optional params and no output schema. The description covers the basic action, but it fails to clarify the default behavior when installed_only is false (does 'available' imply packages not installed, or all package lists?). There is no mention of output format. Given the low complexity, it is marginally adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of the two parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Filter string to search package names' and 'If true, only show installed packages'). The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter-level meaning. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'packages', with a scope distinction between 'available' and 'installed' that maps to the installed_only parameter. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like opkg_upgradable and opkg_info, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and fairly specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 opkg_upgradable or opkg_info. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user is left to infer usage from the name and parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the read action without explaining what happens if the path does not exist, whether the operation is read-only (even though 'Get' implies it), or the structure of the returned value. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core function with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to specify return value format or error behavior, but this is partially offset by the clear schema. The description could be more complete but meets the bar for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully covers the single 'path' parameter with a clear format and example ('network.lan.ipaddr'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra parameter information, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific UCI option value' clearly states the action (get) and resource (UCI option), and the word 'specific' implies a single value rather than a list, distinguishing it from tools like uci_show. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope with them, so it falls 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uci_show or uci_set. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a value is set but does not disclose the critical UCI behavior that changes are staged in memory until uci_commit is called. It also omits whether the path must already exist or whether setting can create new options, leaving the agent without essential operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly underspecified because it omits important behavioral context (commit requirement), so it does not fully earn its place as the sole textual guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the transactional nature of UCI changes and the relationship to uci_commit. It does not, leaving a critical gap. The simple schema helps, but the missing operational context makes the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with both parameters described: 'path' has a format example and 'value' is explained. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a UCI option value' uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('UCI option value'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uci_add, uci_delete, uci_get, and uci_show by describing a uniquely targeted operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the need to call uci_commit for changes to persist, nor does it explain that uci_set modifies an existing option rather than adding a new section. Sibling tools exist for commit and revert, but no usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely restates the action without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, may require elevated privileges, or what happens to non-empty directories when 'recursive' is false. This lack of safety-related context is a notable gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant words or irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, the absence of annotations means the description should provide context about the tool's destructive nature and behavior in edge cases (e.g., deleting a directory without 'recursive'). This information is missing, leaving the description incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: 'path' is described as 'Path to delete' and 'recursive' as 'Recursively delete directories'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a file or directory on the router' uses a specific verb (delete) and clearly identifies the resource (file/directory) and location (router). It distinguishes file_delete from sibling file tools like file_read and file_write, and also from uci_delete which targets UCI configs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uci_delete) or when not to use it. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as permissions, or warnings about destructive consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning that restarting the network will disrupt connectivity, drop active sessions, or require elevated privileges. Side effects and postconditions are entirely omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It avoids redundant words and front-loads the primary action, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate by providing operational context. It conveys the core purpose but omits crucial information about the disruptive nature of the action, required permissions, and what happens to existing connections. This makes it incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully covers the only parameter (interface) with a clear description including the default behavior (omit to restart all networking). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Restart' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the network service or a specific interface.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_status (status checks) and system_reboot (system-wide reboot).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when a specific interface restart is preferred over a full network restart, nor does it contrast with related actions like service_action or system_reboot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Show', but it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens if the package isn't found, or whether it requires an installed package or updated package index. The description adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse and acting as a clear summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity (one required parameter, simple read operation), and the schema fully covers the parameter. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could be more explicit about what 'detailed information' includes. Given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter, package_name, described as 'Package name to get info for') and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter's name and purpose. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Show') and resource ('detailed information about a package'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like opkg_list which list packages. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague—it doesn't specify whether this includes version, size, dependencies, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage context or guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as opkg_list or opkg_upgradable. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose what information is included, how results are returned, or whether there are any size or access considerations. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter getter, the description gives the core purpose, but without an output schema or a list of what 'comprehensive system information' includes, it is less complete than it could be. Given many sibling tools that each cover specific system aspects, this broad description could leave the agent uncertain about the tool's exact scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'comprehensive system information from the OpenWrt router', making the action clear. It is distinguished from sibling tools like system_log and network_status by implying a broad aggregate information pull, though 'comprehensive' remains somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as system_log, process_list, or network_status. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read' which implies a safe read operation, but it does not describe return format, potential side effects, privilege requirements, or how the lines parameter affects behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context such as when to prefer it over system_log, output expectations, or any caveats. For a read operation with one optional parameter, it is minimally viable but leaves the agent without guidance on return values or edge cases. Given no output schema or annotations, the description should do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents the 'lines' parameter as 'Number of recent kernel log lines'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and a specific resource 'kernel log (dmesg)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like system_log or serial_log. Mentioning dmesg anchors the meaning unambiguously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_log. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when the kernel log is the appropriate source.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the core action without behavioral details. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects (e.g., removal is irreversible, may affect configs/dependencies), but none are provided beyond the verb 'Remove'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should ideally mention effects or caveats (e.g., irreversibility, dependency handling) to achieve full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter 'package_name' with clear semantics ('Package name to remove'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') on a specific resource ('an installed package') via the 'opkg' tool. It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like opkg_install, opkg_update, and opkg_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., package must be installed), warnings, or contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose the destructive nature of the operation. It merely states 'clear' without warning that pending expressions will be permanently discarded or describing the effect on the batch queue. The scope behavior (path optional) is also left to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action without excessive verbiage. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks context about the batch queue workflow and how this action fits with sed_add, sed_preview, and sed_execute. It also doesn't mention that omitting path clears all queues. The absence of an output schema is not a gap, but the missing workflow context makes it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description of the optional 'path' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'clear' and identifies the resource as 'pending sed expressions from the batch queue,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sed_add, sed_preview, and sed_execute. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context about the batch queue workflow or when clearing is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that these actions mutate system state, may require elevated privileges, or that enable/disable affect boot configuration. This is a significant gap for a system-management tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and parameters are well described in the schema, but the missing behavioral details and lack of alternative guidance leave the agent without enough context for safe invocation. Given the mutating nature of the tool, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (action enum and service name with examples). The description merely echoes some enum values without adding validation rules, defaults, or additional context, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('Perform an action'), resource ('init.d service'), and scope (start, stop, restart, enable, disable). This distinguishes it from siblings like service_list, which lists services rather than acting on them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that service_list exists for listing services or that network_restart handles network restart operations, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and optional filtering. It fails to disclose output format, potential performance implications, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool but lacks usage context and behavioral details. With no output schema, it could mention what the response format looks like, though this is partially implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the already documented 'optional filtering' concept.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the system log (logread)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kernel_log and serial_log by explicitly naming the system-wide log source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kernel_log or serial_log. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It warns that the SSH session will be disconnected, which is a relevant side effect. However, it omits other significant effects such as termination of all processes, loss of unsaved changes, and downtime duration. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that serve clear purposes: stating the action and issuing a warning. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple reboot command with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It should mention the broader impact of the reboot (e.g., all connections dropped, service downtime) and perhaps note the delay parameter. The warning about SSH covers only one aspect of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the delay parameter with a clear description (delay in seconds, default 0). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so it relies on the schema. Given the schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reboot the OpenWrt router,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like network_restart or service_action by indicating a full system reboot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use reboot versus alternatives like network_restart or service_action. It only states the action and a warning, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without detailing side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or whether it affects all pending changes or just the given path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that directly states the purpose without redundant fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema are minimally sufficient, but it lacks any mention of post-revert behavior or interaction with commit workflows. It is adequate but leaves room for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter 'path' with an example, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'revert' and identifies the resource as 'pending UCI changes', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like uci_commit and uci_changes. It accurately conveys the core action and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as uci_delete or uci_set. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action as 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, require permissions, or describe output format. This lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is a transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose and scope variations. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the input scope but does not specify the output format (e.g., plaintext vs JSON) or any return value semantics, which an agent would need for parsing. Given the simplicity of a show command, the omission is notable but does not make the description incomplete for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It does add a conceptual hierarchy (config -> section -> option) that reinforces parameter relationships, but the schema already covers this. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Show UCI configuration') and the resource scope (all configs, specific config, section/option). It implicitly differentiates from sibling UCI mutation tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from uci_get, so it is clear but not explicitly distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage scenarios through the capability statement ('can show all configs, a specific config, or a specific section/option') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer uci_show over uci_get or other siblings, making this implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning potential side effects (ICMP packets, network impact), required permissions, timeout behavior, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes a network operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and purpose, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply more context about expected results or behavior. It merely states the action, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool returns, how long it takes, or how to interpret failures. This is insufficient for a standalone diagnostic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'host' and 'count'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Ping a host') and the context ('from the router to test connectivity'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling network diagnostic tools like dns_lookup or route_table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for testing connectivity, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools offer different diagnostic functions, yet no comparison or exclusion is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and that status is included, but does not add extra context such as return format, potential delays, or permission requirements. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no fluff. It states the action, the resource, and the scope in an economical way, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It communicates the essential behavior, though it could theoretically note the exact structure of the returned status or clarify the difference from network_status. Overall, it suffices for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema contains no properties, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all network interfaces' on the OpenWrt router, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like network_status, but the focus on interfaces is specific enough to distinguish it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_status or wifi_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects, but it only says 'Connect' and gives use cases. It does not explain whether the connection persists, how to end it, whether it requires physical access, or what success/error output looks like. This is a significant gap for a stateful connect operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains no redundant phrasing. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks critical context about the connection lifecycle, how to interact with the session afterward, and any side effects. The schema covers parameters but not the behavioral context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra parameter context beyond naming the serial port.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Connect to an OpenWrt router via serial port (UART/COM)'. It also differentiates from siblings by specifying the serial transport and use cases (boot logs, recovery, low-level debugging), making its purpose distinct from network-based connect_router.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use it ('useful for boot logs, recovery, and low-level debugging'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is slightly below the explicit alternatives standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Disconnect from the serial port' without mentioning side effects, failure behavior, idempotency, or what happens if no connection exists. Minimal disclosure is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is maximally concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, simple action), the brief description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand its function. However, it lacks any context about when disconnection is appropriate or what state changes occur, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so per the baseline rule a score of 4 is appropriate. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb 'Disconnect' and resource 'serial port', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_serial and serial_log. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without explaining context such as 'use after connect_serial' or 'do not use while serial_log is active'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that it can search within file content (grep mode) in addition to filenames, but it does not mention read-only nature, recursion behavior, performance implications, or return format. This partial disclosure is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, immediately front-loads the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. It is concise, clear, and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, match lines, exit codes) or how it handles multiple results. It also omits any mention of the default path or optional parameters. This leaves significant context gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter (name, path, content) already has descriptive information, establishing a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, relying entirely on the schema. No value beyond the schema is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for files or content within files on the router' uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('files or content within files'), clearly covering both find-by-name and grep-content behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_list (which lists files) and file_read (which reads a specific file), even though alternatives are not explicitly named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool via the verb 'search' and the resource scope, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use file_search versus file_list, file_read, or run_command. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only minimally implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the create-if-missing behavior but omits the default overwrite semantics (append=false), permission requirements, and the destructive potential of overwriting an existing file. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the action 'Write content to a file' with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write operation with full schema parameter coverage, the description adequately conveys purpose and a key behavioral trait. It lacks usage comparison to file-patching siblings and explicit overwrite behavior, but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters (path, content, append) are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the creation context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Write' and resource 'file on the OpenWrt router', and explicitly notes creation behavior if the file doesn't exist. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_read, file_list, and file_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to write content to a file) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as file_patch or sed tools for targeted edits. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects. It only states the action without mentioning that changes are likely uncommitted until uci_commit, whether it overwrites existing sections, or what the return value/outcome is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly worded sentence that communicates the essential purpose with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Add'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return behavior or side effects, but it does not. Given the rich sibling context (uci_commit, uci_revert), it fails to place the tool within the UCI workflow or mention that changes are staged. This makes it incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact of calling it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond naming them ('config' and 'type'). The description's reference to 'given type' and 'config' aligns with the schema but does not enrich parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('anonymous UCI section'), and the required context ('of a given type to a config'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uci_add_list or uci_set by specifying 'anonymous' section addition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool's purpose, and the sibling context makes it evident when to use it (creating a new unnamed section vs. modifying existing entries). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a named section is needed instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the action, omitting details such as behavior when the value is absent, idempotency, interaction with pending UCI changes, or whether a commit is needed. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that earns its place. It is not overlong or redundant, though it is minimal and could benefit from a bit more context. Still, for conciseness, it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%—both path and value have descriptions with an example ('network.lan.dns'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'UCI list option', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like uci_add_list (add) and uci_delete (delete whole option). This is a precise and unambiguous statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage for list entries (as opposed to whole options), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It gives clear context without formal when/when-not guidance, so it earns a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a usage constraint, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistent session, statefulness), authentication behavior, failure modes, or what happens on repeated calls. This is minimal for a connection tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the usage prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple purpose and the schema covers parameters, but the description omits what constitutes a successful connection, how the session is maintained, and possible error conditions. It is adequate as a minimum but lacks details an agent might need to handle failures or verify readiness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Connect to an OpenWrt router via SSH.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from serial-based siblings by specifying SSH. The prerequisite note further clarifies its role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage timing: 'Must be called before using any other tools.' This is an explicit when-to-use directive, though it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It offers clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'using netifd' as a technical implementation detail but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and the description gives the basic purpose, but it lacks details about the output or what status fields are returned. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving gaps for an agent expecting details about the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the 'interface' parameter fully (100% coverage), including its default and examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that it targets a specific interface, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the status of a specific UCI network interface, using a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('network interface'), and scope ('specific'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_interfaces, which presumably lists all interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by focusing on a 'specific' interface, contrasting with the broader scope of sibling tools like network_interfaces. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it when querying one interface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action 'List' (implying read-only) but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, whether it requires prior opkg_update, or any network/state dependencies. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core function without any filler, earning a maximum score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks contextual detail such as the output format (package names vs. versions) or the prerequisite of running opkg update first. With no output schema or annotations to supplement, this gap prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no reason to adjust.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'packages that have upgrades available'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opkg_list (list all packages) and opkg_info (package details), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to check for available upgrades, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives like opkg_update or opkg_list. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the usage context only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the action (execute a shell command) without disclosing important behavioral traits like potential system modification, privilege level, or output/return behavior. This is a significant gap for a command execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a usage rule. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context. It clearly states purpose and usage, but omits details about return format, potential risks, or execution environment. This leaves the agent with notable gaps for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (command and timeout) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a shell command on the OpenWrt router,' specifying both the action and target. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use for any command-line operation not covered by specialized tools,' making its role evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use for any command-line operation not covered by specialized tools,' giving a clear rule for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't enumerate specific alternatives, but the sibling list is available and the guidance is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'raw data' and special use cases, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites like an open connection, return values, or the default newline behavior. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences immediately state the action and use cases. Zero filler, perfect length for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write tool with no output schema, the description is brief but lacks important context about prerequisites (e.g., establishing a serial connection), possible return values, or edge cases like newline handling. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters (data and newline) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'raw data' and special sequences but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes raw data directly to the serial port, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like serial_log (reading) and file_write by emphasizing 'raw data' and special sequences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases ('sending special key sequences, break signals, or interacting with bootloaders'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it slightly misses the 'when-not' aspect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool persists changes and optionally restarts a service, which are relevant side effects. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens if there are no pending changes. The added context is limited but not absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that state the core function and the optional behavior. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly sized for a tool of this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, but it is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the main operation and optional restart. Missing are details about the outcome (e.g., return status, error conditions) or clarification that this is the final step for persisting UCI changes. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the general purpose, but lacks completeness for a state-changing operation with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (config and restart_service), so the baseline is 3. The description only refers to 'affected service' in relation to restart_service, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not compensate with additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'commit' and clearly identifies the resource ('pending UCI changes') and the intended outcome ('make them persistent'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like uci_revert (which reverts changes) and uci_changes (which lists changes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'pending UCI changes' implies the tool should be used after modifications have been made (e.g., via uci_set), and the mention of optional service restart provides contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like uci_revert, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'check' and 'shows,' but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, whether it attempts to establish a connection if disconnected, or the output format. It adds useful detail about what it reports, but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds one clarifying detail about the content. Every word is meaningful and there is no repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what the agent can expect. It names the specific categories of information returned (SSH, serial, transport), which is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it. Missing a bit of detail about the format, but overall complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to explain, and no additional meaning is needed beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('check') with a clear resource ('connection status to the router') and details the exact info shown (SSH, serial, active transport). This effectively distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like network_status or wifi_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_status or switch_transport. The description states what it does but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when it is the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool only tracks changes made through MCP tools, which is useful scope information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'View' implies it) or mention any side effects, prerequisites, or limits like retention.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding scope. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what is shown (MCP-tool changes with timestamps and details) and implies the safety profile via 'View'. Minor gaps include not addressing whether history persists across reboots or covering default behavior, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('last' for record count, 'path' for file filtering), so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of 'timestamps and details' hints at output but not parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline score for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('View') and resource ('modification history for files'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping the history to changes made through MCP tools (write, patch, sed, chmod, delete). This makes it unambiguous when compared to file_read, file_write, or file_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage is for auditing MCP-tool changes, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives (e.g., use file_read for current content). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic read-only operation but does not disclose details such as whether hidden files are included, how the output is formatted, or any potential side effects. The description is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is concise, readable, and every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the core operation is simple and self-explanatory. Although it does not describe return format or limitations, the simplicity of the tool and the schema coverage make the description sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (path and details), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-related meaning; it only describes the overall tool purpose. The schema already explains the parameters adequately, so no further compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'files and directories' with a clear scope 'at a given path on the router.' It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like file_read (which reads content) and file_search (which searches for files), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for exploring directory contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_read or file_delete. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the batched nature and that all contents are returned in one call, but omits important details such as error handling for missing files, size limits, or whether partial failures are possible. This is a notable gap for a tool with no structured safety cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core action ('Read multiple files at once'), and includes only relevant details about performance and return behavior. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (single array parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys its primary function and return semantics. It lacks edge-case behavior like partial failure handling, but given the low complexity, the provided information is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the paths parameter as an array of absolute file paths, so the schema provides 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or constraints, which places it at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads multiple files at once ('Read multiple files at once'), which is a specific action on a specific resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool file_read by emphasizing batching. It also notes the primary benefit ('better performance') and the composite return behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for better performance' implies the tool is intended for batch reads instead of issuing multiple individual file_read calls, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name file_read as the alternative or mention exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, output format, or whether elevated permissions are needed. For a simple status command, the implied safety is somewhat clear, but additional behavioral context would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler words or redundant information, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It covers what the tool shows (firewall rules and zones). However, it could marginally improve by noting any prerequisites or typical use cases, but for a status display it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has no properties, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show the current firewall rules and zones' uses a specific verb (show) and resource (firewall rules and zones), clearly distinguishing it from sibling status tools like network_status or wifi_status. It directly states the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or notes about when to prefer this over UCI config tools or other status commands. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' clearly conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the lack of side effects is appropriately implied. For a simple zero-parameter utility, this is sufficient disclosure, though it does not detail output format or any edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the function with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's minimal complexity—zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—the one-sentence description is entirely adequate. It conveys the complete scope of the operation without needing additional explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by definition. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the vacuous schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show the routing table' clearly identifies the action (show) and the resource (routing table), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like network_status or network_interfaces, so it falls 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where the routing table is needed or comparisons to other network-related tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states the tool lists services and their status, clearly implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify any prerequisites, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core function. It includes no unnecessary words or redundant information, achieving high efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It explicitly names the resource (init.d services) and the information returned (status). However, without an output schema or additional behavioral details, the description is not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-specific information. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing available init.d services and their status. The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource 'init.d services' is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like process_list or service_action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that service_action handles service modifications, or that process_list shows running processes. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It uses the non-destructive verb 'Show' and clarifies 'uncommitted', implying read-only access to a pending state. However, it does not detail whether root is required, how changes are formatted, or any other behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The meaning of 'pending' and its distinction from committed state is clear, though some output format details could be added. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'config' parameter with a clear description ('Config name to check (omit for all configs)'). The tool description itself does not supplement parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' and resource 'pending (uncommitted) UCI changes', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like uci_commit, uci_revert, and uci_show. The term 'uncommitted' adds precise scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when wanting to inspect uncommitted UCI changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uci_show or uci_commit. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'get', but does not disclose return format, permissions required, or any side effects. The minimal wording leaves behavioral traits largely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the core message without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential function. It lacks details about what the status includes, but the low complexity makes it reasonably complete for the agent to invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per guidelines, a tool with 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get wireless radio and interface status' uses the specific verb 'get' with a precise resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like wifi_scan (scanning) and network_status (broader network status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a status-checking tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios, making the usage context clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about server-side parsing and format support, but it does not mention that the file is modified in place, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites like file existence. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters, but there is no output schema, so the description should hint at return values or error behavior. It doesn't mention whether the tool returns success/failure or any result, nor does it mention the dry_run option. The core operation is clear, but some completeness is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'standard unified diff format (output of diff -u)', which reinforces the patch parameter's schema but does not add significant new meaning. This follows the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Apply' with a clear resource 'a file' and method 'unified diff patch'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like file_write and sed by focusing on patch application. The note about server-side parsing further clarifies its unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a standard unified diff (from 'diff -u'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the diff-specific nature makes the use case evident. The context is clear, even without explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation, which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose details like output structure, permission requirements, or whether it returns a snapshot, which would be valuable for an agent. The absence of these details is a minor gap for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant or irrelevant information. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what information is returned. It says 'List running processes' but does not specify fields like PID, memory, or command name. While the tool is simple, this missing detail makes the description only minimally complete for an agent expecting clear return value documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with an empty schema, there is nothing to explain. The clarity of the tool's purpose compensates for the lack of parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List running processes on the router.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('running processes'), and the scope ('on the router') adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_list, which lists services rather than processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting running processes but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as system_info or service_list. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and simple description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and the source (configured repositories), which implies a network operation and local state change. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network dependency, time requirements, or failure modes, leaving room for more transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, targeted sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse and quickly understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for basic invocation. It explains the action and source, which is sufficient for an agent to know what happens. However, it could benefit from a note about prerequisites (e.g., network connectivity) or the expected effect on the system, making it slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this (coverage is vacuously 100%). With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it also does not compensate for any missing schema info, which is unnecessary here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly states the resource: 'opkg package lists from configured repositories.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings like opkg_install, opkg_remove, and opkg_list by focusing on refreshing the package index rather than managing packages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only states what the tool does, providing implicit usage context (e.g., run before installing to refresh available versions). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it relative to siblings or provide alternatives, so the guidance is minimal but not completely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately describes the read operation but fails to mention potential side effects like the 'clear' parameter that can empty the buffer, or prerequisites such as an active serial connection. The description does provide useful content scope (all serial output), but key behavioral details are left to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main function and content of the output. However, it omits operational context such as the need to establish a serial connection first, which might matter given sibling connection tools. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both 'clear' and 'lines' having descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read the serial port output buffer' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by listing contents (boot messages, kernel logs, command output) that encompass but go beyond sibling tools like system_log and kernel_log.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context—it is for reading the serial port buffer—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since it mentions it captures kernel logs and boot messages, it implicitly distinguishes itself from the separate system_log and kernel_log tools, but stops short of explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List', but it does not detail any potential side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications. It does add context by specifying the data sources (DHCP leases and ARP table), which is useful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('List currently connected network clients') and adds a clarifying parenthetical about data sources. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool, this description is fully complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the underlying data sources. Given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, there is no essential information missing that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 params. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it does not attempt to invent semantics for non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing currently connected network clients. It specifies the data sources (DHCP leases and ARP table), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_interfaces or wifi_status. The verb 'List' and the resource 'connected network clients' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to see connected clients, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like connection_status or network_status. There is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance, but the clear purpose makes the intended use reasonably obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, which is the central behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or return format details, leaving some ambiguity about whether it blocks or requires setup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the exact purpose efficiently, making every word count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the sibling context, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect—a list of serial ports—and no further caveats or details are necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List available serial ports on the system' uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('serial ports'), and defines scope ('on the system'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like serial_write, serial_log, and connect_serial, which involve actions beyond listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: call this when you need to enumerate available serial ports. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when checking connection status or before connecting to a serial port. There are no exclusion cues or sibling references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns file metadata (total lines and size) alongside content, which goes beyond a simple read. It also explains chunked reading. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention potential side effects, safety guarantees (like read-only certainty), error cases, or performance implications, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable large-file guidance. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the relatively simple use case and the fully described schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers reading, chunking, and the metadata return. It does not mention the legacy 'lines' parameter or explicitly compare with file_read_batch, but these are covered by the schema and sibling names. It is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly framing offset and limit as a chunking mechanism for large files, which is not fully explicit in the schema. It reinforces the intended usage pattern, earning a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('file on the OpenWrt router'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like file_write, file_list, or file_read_batch. It also adds a unique detail about reading large files in chunks, reinforcing its identity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage context by advising to use offset and limit for large files to read in chunks, which is a practical guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., when to use file_read_batch instead) or exclusionary conditions, keeping it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the critical behavioral trait of deferred execution and accumulation, which is not in the schema or annotations. However, it could further explain queue lifecycle (e.g., per-file scope, append behavior) and error handling, but it goes beyond a minimal description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy; the first sentence states the action, the second clarifies key behavior. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and deferred-execution behavior. It doesn't fully specify queue lifecycle, but the sibling tools (sed_execute, sed_clear) imply the rest. Adequate for a simple tool with full parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full parameter descriptions for path and expressions, including examples. The description adds only the context that expressions are enqueued, not immediate, which doesn't materially enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool's action: 'Add one or more sed expressions to the batch queue for a file.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sed_execute, sed_preview, and sed_clear by emphasizing the queueing behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says expressions are 'NOT executed immediately — they accumulate until sed_execute is called,' which clearly indicates when to use this tool: when building up multiple edits before execution. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly but implies the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key side effects: files are 'edited in-place' with 'a backup (.sed.bak)', and expressions are 'combined into a single sed command for atomicity'. This goes beyond a vague mutation warning and provides meaningful operational detail, though it stops short of explaining failure handling or rollback scenarios.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action and subject, while the second adds crucial details about in-place editing, backups, and atomicity. There is zero waste or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers a robust overview. It covers the queue concept, per-file scope, backup creation, and atomicity. Minor gaps include not clarifying what happens if no expressions are pending or if the queue is cleared after execution, but these are not essential for using the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single optional 'path' parameter with a clear description: 'If provided, only execute expressions for this file. Otherwise execute all files in queue.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute all pending sed expressions in the batch queue.' This includes a specific verb ('execute'), a clear resource ('pending sed expressions in the batch queue'), and distinguishes it from siblings like sed_preview or sed_add. It also adds important context about in-place editing and backup creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when there are pending sed expressions that need to be applied. It mentions the batch queue and the optional path filter, giving clarity on scope. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states 'dry run with sed, no modification,' disclosing the key safety trait. It also indicates preview behavior for the queue. It does not cover edge cases like empty queue or exact output format, but the core behavioral disclosure is solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding optional usage. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and optional filtering. It does not specify the response format, but that is not essential for a straightforward preview tool and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single optional 'path' parameter with 100% coverage, including its dry-run purpose. The description's mention of 'specific file' and 'dry run' essentially duplicates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Preview all pending sed expressions in the batch queue' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sed_add, sed_execute, and sed_clear by focusing on preview and dry-run behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: preview the batch queue, or optionally preview sed output on a specific file with a dry run (no modification). This implies a safe pre-execution check, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (disconnect) and the transport (SSH), but does not elaborate on effects such as whether any ongoing operations are interrupted, whether the session is closed cleanly, or if there are prerequisites (e.g., existing connection). The behavior is simple and the description is not misleading, but it lacks depth beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the target, earning its place without superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the action (disconnect), the target (currently connected OpenWrt router), and the transport (SSH). There are no complex side effects or return values to document.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It appropriately omits any parameter semantics since there are none to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Disconnect'), clearly identifies the resource ('currently connected OpenWrt router'), and adds the context 'SSH', which distinguishes it from serial disconnection. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like disconnect_serial and represents a distinct action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the scenario: use when connected via SSH and you want to close that connection. The parenthetical '(SSH)' provides clear context and differentiates from serial connections, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: both connections can be maintained simultaneously, and the tool only changes which one is active for commands. This goes beyond the basic action and helps the agent understand side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the action, the second adds an important clarification. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it does, the relationship between connections, and the impact on command execution. No critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage, including an enum and description for the 'transport' parameter. The description adds context by naming the two transports (SSH and serial) and their effect on command execution, but it doesn't add significant new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('active transport between SSH and serial'), and clarifies the effect by stating it controls which connection is used for command execution. This distinguishes it from sibling connect/disconnect tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly establishes the context for use: when both connections are maintained and you need to select which one executes commands. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives when not to use it, but the dual-connection clarification provides adequate usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not mention whether it returns a specific format or whether it covers all users' crontabs, but for a simple list tool this is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and includes the necessary context ('current crontab entries on the router'). No wasted words; every part contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It states the exact action and scope. A slight gap is that it does not specify whether it lists all crontabs or just the current user's, but this is a minor omission for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered and there is no need for additional parameter explanations. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource 'crontab entries on the router,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, as no other tool mentions cron or crontab.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is used to view current crontab entries on the router. There are no alternative tools for this task among the siblings, so explicit exclusion is not necessary. The description gives enough context for an agent to choose this tool when listing cron jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openwrt-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haode01/openwrt-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haode01/openwrt-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openwrt-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haode01/openwrt-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/haode01/openwrt-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/haode01/openwrt-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server