Set the telnet port on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router. Requires confirmation before applying the new port value to the device.
Set telnet 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 discloses that this is a write operation that requires confirmation, which is useful given there are no annotations. However, it does not explain the confirmation workflow (e.g., how confirm_token, confirmation_id, or acknowledge are used), nor any side effects or reversibility. This is better than nothing but still 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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and adds the behavioral note about confirmation, all without unnecessary words.
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, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It omits how the confirmation process works, what each parameter is for, and what the response might be. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions setting the telnet port, which is obvious from the required 'port' parameter. The other four parameters (user_code, acknowledge, confirm_token, confirmation_id) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose and usage in the confirmation flow.
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 target ('telnet port'), explicitly naming the resource being modified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mngt_sshport or mngt_httpport, which set different ports.
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only inferred from the name and description, but there is no explicit direction on choosing it over similar management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.