Retrieve access point status and configuration from a DrayTek Vigor router. A read-only query that returns current AP details for monitoring or troubleshooting.
AP query (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does 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. The 'read-only' note is a genuinely useful safety signal that tells the agent this operation has no mutating side effects. However, nothing else is disclosed - no return format, no indication of result size or data characteristics.
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?
Three words with zero waste, and the read-only safety trait is front-loaded. But the brevity crosses the line into under-specification rather than effective conciseness - it is comparable to the 'Process' example in being too sparse to carry meaning, though it is saved by adding the read-only hint.
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 0-param tool, the agent needs to know what the query returns and when it is the right choice. There is no output schema to compensate for the missing return-value description, and no indication of how apm_query relates to apm_show or apm_stanum. The read-only note and empty schema reduce misuse risk, but the tool is not adequately specified for correct selection.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so per the calibration baseline, 0 params earns a 4. There is no parameter information the description could add because none exist; the schema coverage is trivially 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('query') and a resource ('AP'), so it is not a tautologytons. However, 'AP query' is vague - it doesn't specify what aspect of AP is being queried or what operation is performed. Critically, it does not distinguish itself from siblings in the same domain such as apm_show and apm_stanum, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 200 sibling tools including apm_show, apm_stanum, apm_enable, and apm_disable, the description provides no selection criteria or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.