Queries switch status and configuration on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router, providing read-only access to current switch settings for diagnostics and auditing.
Switch query (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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the operation is read-only, which is helpful but minimal. It does not describe what data is returned, whether there are side effects (beyond read-only), or any access requirements.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential details about the tool's scope and behavior, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.
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 the vague description and no output schema, an agent cannot determine what this tool does, what inputs it might take (even though none are declared), or what the response looks like. The existence of many sibling tools makes this ambiguity worse, as the agent cannot reliably choose this tool.
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, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no misleading information. This is the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 ('query') and a resource ('switch') but is vague about what is being queried. It does not differentiate from siblings like switch_status or switch_list, which likely serve similar purposes. Adding 'read-only' is a hint but not a clear purpose.
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. The agent is left to guess whether switch_query is preferred over switch_status or switch_list, and there is no mention of any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.