List all switch ports on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router to inspect port status and configuration. This read-only tool provides a direct view for network monitoring and troubleshooting.
Switch port list (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 must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool is 'read-only', which is a useful safety signal, but it omits any other behavior such as output format, authentication needs, or performance implications. This minimal disclosure leaves the agent under-informed for a tool with no other metadata.
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 extremely concise, using only one phrase. It is front-loaded with the key action ('list') and resource ('switch port'), and there is zero redundancy. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, so a high yet not perfect score is appropriate.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It only says 'read-only' and 'list', but doesn't clarify the output format, how it differs from sibling switch tools, or any edge cases. This is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides no information by definition. The description adds meaning by indicating the tool returns a list of switch ports, which is beyond what the empty schema conveys. With 0 parameters, this is a solid baseline score.
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 verb ('list') and a resource ('switch port'), but it's phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear action. It doesn't specify what details are listed or how it differs from similar sibling tools like switch_status or switch_query, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
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. There are many sibling tools with similar names (switch_status, switch_query, port_status), and the description gives no hint about the appropriate context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.