Add a static route to the router's routing table, requiring confirmation before the change is applied.
Add a static route (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gw | Yes | ||
| dest | Yes | ||
| mask | 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 provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that confirmation is required, which is useful. It does not explain the confirmation flow, side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the key confirmation requirement with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for the information it conveys.
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 tool has six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema coverage, yet the description offers almost no contextual guidance. It does not explain the confirmation workflow, required fields, return values, or when confirmation tokens are obtained, so an agent cannot reliably invoke this 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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain dest/mask/gw semantics or the confirmation-related parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The word 'route' only weakly implies dest/mask/gw but does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of descriptions.
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 ('Add'), a concrete resource ('static route'), and a clear write operation. It distinguishes from related siblings like ip_route_del and ip_route_status by stating the add action, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 the tool is for adding a static routetons, and 'requires confirmation' hints at the workflow. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or mention alternatives such as ip_route_del or ip_route_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.