Submit switch configuration writes that require confirmation, ensuring changes are applied only after explicit approval.
Switch management POST (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It notes 'requires confirmation' and labels itself as a write, which implies mutation, but it does not explain the confirmation mechanism (how to obtain confirm_token or confirmation_id), what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, or what a successful response looks like. The single behavioral trait is far from sufficient for a write operation.
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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It does not front-load the most actionable information (what to provide, how to confirm) and lacks any logical organization of the operation's key aspects.
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 it is a write operation with a confirmation flow, four parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits the request format, parameter semantics, confirmation procedure, and expected response, leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool correctly.
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%, so the description should compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain what 'param' represents, the role of user_code, or how confirm_token and confirmation_id relate to the confirmation requirement. An agent cannot infer valid values or relationships from the text.
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 it is a POST (write) operation for switch management, which distinguishes it from the many read-style sibling tools (swm_show, swm_get). However, it does not specify what particular action is performed (create, update, delete) or which switch-management resource it targets, leaving the purpose vague and not clearly distinct from other write-oriented siblings like swm_enable or swm_set.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or how the confirmation flow works, nor does it reference any sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this over other swm_* write operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.