Change the management HTTPS port on a DrayTek Vigor router. Requires confirmation to apply the update securely.
Set HTTPS port (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'write — requires confirmation', which hints at a two-step confirmation flow and that the operation mutates state. However, it doesn't explain the confirmation mechanism (e.g., the roles of confirm_token and confirmation_id), potential side effects, or reversibility, leaving 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 a single, efficient phrase that front-loads the action and write nature. It contains no fluff or redundant words, but is almost too sparse, providing only the minimum. It's appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a tool with five parameters, a confirmation flow, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits the purpose of each parameter, how confirmation works, and what the result will be. An agent would have to guess at the semantics of the confirmation-related fields and the expected behavior.
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 information about any of the five parameters. It doesn't mention that 'port' is the key value or explain what user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, or confirmation_id are for. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's 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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('HTTPS port'), distinguishing it from siblings like mngt_httpport (HTTP) and mngt_sshport. It also flags it as a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for the management interface, though the mngt_ prefix implies it.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mngt_httpport or mngt_sshport. It doesn't state any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.