Retrieve the current local 802.1X configuration from a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router. Use this read-only tool to inspect authentication settings without modifying the system.
Local 802.1X configuration (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 discloses that the operation is 'read-only', which is useful and indicates no side effects. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., the format or details of the configuration), whether any authentication or privileges are required, or any other relevant behavior. The disclosure is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects undefined.
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 short phrase that is concise and front-loaded with the key information ('Local 802.1X configuration' and 'read-only'). It contains no filler. However, it is extremely terse, and while not verbose, it could arguably be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to include more 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?
Given that the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is moderately adequate. It indicates the resource and read-only nature, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, it provides no detail about what the configuration output contains, how it is presented, or any potential limitations. For a show tool, this may be acceptable, but more specificity would improve completeness.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it adds no extraneous information that could confuse.
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 the resource ('Local 802.1X configuration') and explicitly notes it is 'read-only', which implies a show operation. It distinguishes this tool from write operations and from the sibling local8021x_show_local_cer by focusing on configuration rather than certificates. However, the verb 'show' is not explicitly stated, though the name and read-only hint make the purpose reasonably clear.
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. The long sibling list includes local8021x_show_local_cer, which is closely related, but the description gives no differentiation or selection criteria. No context is provided on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.