Delete a static IPv4 route from a DrayTek Vigor router by specifying destination and mask, with confirmation required to apply the change.
Delete a static route (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not explain the confirmation mechanism (e.g., how confirm_token or confirmation_id are obtained) or any side effects beyond deletion, leaving gaps for an agent.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and a key behavioral trait (write, requires confirmation). No redundant wording or unnecessary details are present.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits the confirmation flow, parameter semantics, and any indication of success or failure responses. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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, but it provides no parameter explanations. The names 'dest' and 'mask' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their meaning, nor does it explain the confirmation-related parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The tool's parameter semantics are therefore poorly conveyed.
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 'Delete a static route' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ip_route_add (which adds) and ip_route_status (which shows). The action and object are 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?
The description implies usage by its name and verb, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ip_route_add or ip_route_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.