Configure the secondary DNS server for a LAN DHCP pool on a Vigor router. Requires confirmation to apply, preventing unintended DNS changes.
Set DHCP secondary DNS (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dns | Yes | ||
| lan | 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?
The description explicitly flags 'write' and 'requires confirmation', which signals a mutating operation requiring extra steps. However, it does not explain the confirmation flow itself, what confirmation parameters are needed, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.
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?
A single, tightly packed sentence contains the essential action and a critical caveat ('write — requires confirmation'). It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
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?
The description is too sparse for a confirmation-gated write operation. It omits the workflow needed to obtain confirmation tokens, the meaning of lan, and what happens on success/failure. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently execute this 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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the five parameters, including the roles of user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id, or how lan/dns relate to the operation. The agent gets no value beyond the raw schema.
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?
Description states a clear verb and resource: 'Set DHCP secondary DNS'. The word 'secondary' distinguishes it from sibling dhcp_dns1, so an agent can tell which DNS parameter is being modified. It is 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to prefer this over dhcp_dns1 or other DHCP settings, or any conditions under which this should be used. The agent must infer usage 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.