Configure the WAN internet connection type (PPPoE, DHCP, or static) on a DrayTek Vigor router, with optional credentials and confirmation for safe write access.
Set WAN internet access mode (PPPoE/DHCP/static/...) (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wan | Yes | ||
| mode | Yes | ||
| password | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| user_code | No | ||
| acknowledge | 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly notes 'write' and 'requires confirmation', which are valuable. However, it does not explain the confirmation flow (e.g., token/ID semantics), whether changes take effect immediately, or any side effects such as connection interruption, leaving significant gaps.
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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and includes a crucial caveat ('requires confirmation') without extra fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 the complexity (8 parameters, write operation requiring confirmation, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It lacks details on parameter meanings, the confirmation mechanism, expected side effects, and return behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool correctly.
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 only suggests possible values for 'mode' via examples (PPPoE/DHCP/static) but does not explain the meaning of 'wan', or the ancillary parameters like username, password, acknowledge, confirm_token, confirmation_id, or user_code. This is minimal compensation for an 8-parameter 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('WAN internet access mode'), and lists distinct mode options (PPPoE/DHCP/static), which clearly differentiates it from sibling view/enable/disable tools. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
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 implies usage by naming the resource and action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like internet_view, wan_enable, or wan_disable. The confirmation note hints at a two-step workflow but no when-not or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.