Update URL content filter rules on DrayTek Vigor routers using a confirmation-gated write command.
URL content filter settings (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | ||
| user_code | No | ||
| confirm_token | No | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose two important traits: the operation mutates state ('write') and it requires confirmation. However, it omits specifics such as what 'requires confirmation' means for the invocation flow, whether existing settings are overwritten, or what response is expected.
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 text is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is more terse than structured and omits necessary contextual detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this fragment is far from complete. An agent cannot infer the required parameter semantics, the confirmation flow, or the effect of the operation well enough to reliably invoke the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for the required 'param' parameter or for 'user_code', 'confirm_token', and 'confirmation_id'. The confirmation-related fields are not explained, so an agent cannot determine what values to supply.
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 identifies a specific resource, URL content filter settings, and labels the operation as 'write', which conveys mutation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it lacks clear differentiation, but it is not tautological and an agent can form a basic idea of the action.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as csm_wcf, csm_dnsf, csm_appe_set, or any read-style tools. It only notes that confirmation is required, leaving the selection context entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.