Sets the gateway IP address for a specified DHCP LAN pool. Requires a confirmation token to apply changes, preventing unintended router modifications.
Set DHCP pool gateway (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lan | Yes | ||
| gateway | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'write — requires confirmation', which indicates a mutation and a confirmation step. However, it does not explain the confirmation mechanism, any side effects, or permission requirements. This is minimal but non-zero.
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, efficiently front-loading the action and the confirmation requirement. It is appropriately short, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. As a concise statement, it is well-structured.
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 inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and a confirmation flow. It fails to explain the confirmation process, parameter semantics, or any prerequisites. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide more context, which it does not.
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 provides no parameter information. The schema defines 5 parameters (lan, gateway, user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id), but the description does not explain any of them. The agent must rely on names and types alone, which is insufficient for a confirmation flow.
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 the action and resource: 'Set DHCP pool gateway'. It identifies the specific verb and target, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling DHCP set tools like dhcp_startip or dhcp_dns1, though the name itself is fairly specific.
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 provides no context about prerequisites, use cases, or when to choose this over other DHCP configuration tools. An agent gets no help in selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.