Set an IP filter option on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router, applying a specified parameter change after explicit confirmation for write safety.
Set IP filter option (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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, but does not explain the confirmation flow, what parameters are needed for confirmation (e.g., confirm_token, confirmation_id), or what side effects may occur. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves 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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical details like parameter semantics and confirmation process. It earns a middling score because it is not verbose, but it also does not provide the necessary context.
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 5 parameters, a required 'param', and no output schema. The description is far too sparse to guide correct invocation. It does not explain what values 'param' accepts, how the confirmation workflow works, or what the response will look like. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool without further exploration.
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 provides no information about any of the 5 parameters. The 'param' field, which is required, is not described at all. The confirmation-related parameters (user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, confirmation_id) are completely unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the schema's structural definition.
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 clear action ('Set IP filter option') with a specific resource ('IP filter'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ipf_rule or ipf_view, so the agent cannot immediately know when to use this instead of those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note ('requires confirmation') is behavioral, not usage-related. The agent is left to infer when ipf_set is appropriate compared to ipf_rule or ipf_view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.