Set the SSH port on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router; requires confirmation to apply the change.
Set SSH 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?
The description explicitly discloses that this is a write operation and that it requires confirmation, which is valuable. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explain the confirmation flow, persistence of the change, or potential side effects.
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, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise but very brief for a tool with five parameters.
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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, this description is not complete. An agent cannot determine the confirmation workflow or the role of the optional parameters, so additional context is needed for reliable invocation.
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 description clarifies that 'port' refers to the SSH port, but it leaves user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, and confirmation_id completely unexplained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, these parameters remain ambiguous to an agent.
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 and target: 'Set SSH port'. It distinguishes the tool from mngt_httpport and mngt_telnetport, though it does not clarify how it differs from the sibling linux_ssh_port.
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 for when to use this tool versus related tools such as mngt_sshtimeout, mngt_telnetport, or linux_ssh_port. The write/confirmation note hints at operational context but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.