Flush all portmap entries to clear router diagnostic data. Requires confirmation before the write is executed.
Flush all portmaps (diagnostics) (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | 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 and requires confirmation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what 'flush' does to existing portmap entries, whether it is reversible, or what the confirmation flow entails. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and only partially meets it.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key write/confirmation warning. It is concise, though the parenthetical '(diagnostics)' is slightly ambiguous.
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 destructive write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the confirmation mechanism, the effect of flushing, or how the three parameters should be populated. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.
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 does not explain any of the three parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The agent must infer that these relate to the confirmation flow, but the description provides no explicit mapping or format guidance.
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 a specific verb ('Flush') and resource ('all portmaps'), and adds a diagnostic context. It is distinguishable from siblings like portmaptime_list and portmaptime_set, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a destructive diagnostic action or that it should be used only after listing/inspecting portmaps. The '(diagnostics)' hint is weak context, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.