Retrieve the current access point (AP) management status from the router. This read-only check shows whether AP management is enabled or disabled without altering any settings.
AP management status (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?
The description explicitly says 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, this is the only behavioral disclosure. It does not mention output format, response size, or any other side effects, but for a simple read operation it adds some value.
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, efficient phrase: 'AP management status (read-only)'. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not specify what fields or information the status will contain, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'AP' or provide any context about the response. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool's output.
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, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add any parameter-related meaning, which is fine since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource ('AP management status') and the read-only nature, which makes it clear it's a status query. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like apm_query or apm_stanum, so the exact scope of what status is shown remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other show/AP tools, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.