Inspect service object definitions on DrayTek Vigor routers through a read-only view, providing safe visibility into current configurations without altering settings.
Service objects view (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the operation is read-only, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what data is returned, whether the view is live or cached, or any access requirements, leaving most behavioral context implicit.
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 with no wasted words and the read-only qualifier is front-loaded. It is concise, though terse to the point of under-specification.
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 zero-parameter tool, invocation is trivial, but with no output schema the description should explain what the view returns. It does not define 'service objects' or clarify how this view relates to similar siblings, so an agent is left guessing about the result and when it is useful.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information that the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to document.
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 'Service objects view (read-only)' is essentially the tool name with underscores replaced by spaces; it restates the name without adding detail about what the tool actually does. It names a resource and a view action, but not what a service object is or how this differs from service_show or service_get.
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 the many sibling view/show/get tools. The read-only qualifier implies safe invocation, but no intended context, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.