Bind an IP address to a MAC address to enforce static assignment on the router. This write operation requires confirmation before applying the change.
Bind IP to MAC address (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | ||
| mac | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'write — requires confirmation', which discloses that this is a mutating operation and that some confirmation mechanism is involved. However, it does not explain side effects, prerequisites, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. This is minimal but not entirely absent, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 extremely brief and front-loaded: the main action and the write/confirmation note appear first. There is no waste. However, it is under-specified (which is penalized in other dimensions). For conciseness alone, it is efficient, though the brevity borders on being too terse to be useful.
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 tool has 5 parameters, is a write operation, has no output schema, and implies a confirmation flow, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the confirmation token, what user_code is, what the response looks like, or any side effects. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without additional information.
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 adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters. It only mentions that confirmation is required, but does not clarify the roles of ip, mac, user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id. With 5 parameters and zero documentation, the agent cannot infer how to populate them correctly, especially the confirmation-related fields.
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: 'Bind IP to MAC address'. This is a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from the many read-only sibling tools (show_*, dhcp_status, etc.). It also indicates this is a write operation, which further differentiates it from the majority of siblings that are queries.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for selection. While the write nature distinguishes it from read-only tools, there are other write tools (e.g., dhcp_on, ip_route_add) and no comparative context is given. The only hint is 'requires confirmation', which implies a process but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.