Assign a primary IP address to a server with multiple IPs by specifying server ID, target IP, and the IP to set as main. Confirm the operation to apply changes.
Назначить основной IP-адрес сервера (ip/set_main), когда адресов несколько.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID сервера | |
| ip | Yes | IP-адрес | |
| main | Yes | IP-адрес, который станет основным | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'assign' action is consistent with a state change that is not destructive. The description adds the behavioral context that this is for multi-address scenarios, but it does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. Given the annotations already cover the safety profile, the added value is modest but not trivial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the action, the resource, the API reference, and the condition of use. Every phrase earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter operation with four required parameters all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does and when to use it. It could potentially mention the need for confirmation, but that is already captured in the schema's 'confirm' parameter description. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (id, ip, main, confirm) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (assign the main IP address) on a specific resource (server), and includes the API endpoint identifier (ip/set_main). It also specifies the context ('when there are several addresses'), which distinguishes it from other IP-related operations like get_ip_info, update_ptr_record, or block_ip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear condition for use: 'when there are several addresses.' This implies the tool is used when a server has multiple IPs and one needs to be designated as primary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus other IP management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.