Retrieve the current DMZ host configuration from a DrayTek Vigor router to verify which LAN device is exposed to the internet and review its settings.
DMZ host configuration (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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it explicitly states 'read-only', which is the key behavioral trait for a zero-parameter query. It does not describe output format or side effects, but for a simple read-only command this is largely adequate.
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 phrase that front-loads the resource and its read-only nature. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant content.
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 show command, the description adequately states what is displayed and that the operation is non-mutating. It omits output/format details, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the missing information is a minor gap.
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 input schema has no properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because the tool accepts no parameters.
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 identifies the resource ('DMZ host configuration') and the access mode ('read-only'), making the tool's function clear. It does not use an explicit verb, relying partially on the 'show' prefix in the name, but it is unambiguous and distinguishable from setter-style sibling tools like nat_dmz.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling show commands such as show_status, show_nat, or nat_dmz. The 'read-only' tag implies safe retrieval, but it does not state conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.