Manage IP filter rules on a DrayTek router with two-step confirmation to prevent accidental or unauthorized changes. Apply rule updates after explicit acknowledgement.
Manage IP filter rules (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | ||
| 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 provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is useful, but it does not explain what the confirmation entails, what side effects occur, what happens on success or failure, or how the confirmation token/id parameters relate to the flow.
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 short and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The phrase 'Manage IP filter rules' is generic and the parenthetical 'write — requires confirmation' does not compensate for the absence of substantive guidance.
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?
This is a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, an opaque parameter set, and a large sibling list containing similar tools. The description is far too incomplete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, especially given the opaque 'param' field and the unmodeled confirmation process.
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 five parameters. The required 'param' field is completely opaque, and the confirmation-related fields (acknowledge, confirm_token, confirmation_id, user_code) are left unexplained, so an agent cannot infer how to construct a valid invocation.
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 identifies the resource (IP filter rules) and flags it as a write operation requiring confirmation, but uses the vague verb 'manage' rather than a specific action. It does not distinguish whether this creates, updates, deletes, or replaces rules, and it does not differentiate from the sibling ipf_set or ipf_view tools.
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 like ipf_view or ipf_set, and no explanation of the prerequisite confirmation flow. The only hint, 'requires confirmation,' implies a workflow but does not say what triggers it or when the tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.