Search a DrayTek Vigor router for a switch configuration value, then confirm the operation to apply the change. Provide a search parameter and confirmation token to execute the write.
Switch search (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not explain what the confirmation flow is, what side effects occur, what gets modified, or what the response looks like. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The parenthetical adds one useful fact (write requires confirmation), but the main clause is vague. It is not well-structured for an agent because it does not front-load a clear action statement.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague name, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what to pass for 'param', how to obtain a confirmation token, or what the tool returns. The sibling list shows many similar switch/swm tools, and this description does nothing to disambiguate them.
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 provides no parameter information. The schema shows a required 'param' string plus optional user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id, but the description does not explain what 'param' means, how the confirmation fields relate to the write operation, or what values are expected. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
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 'Switch search (write — requires confirmation)' is ambiguous. It names a resource ('switch search') and hints at a write operation, but it does not state what the tool actually does, what it searches, or what the write action is. It is closer to a label than a clear verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools like swm_show, swm_get, or switch_query.
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. The parenthetical 'write — requires confirmation' implies a confirmation flow, but there is no explanation of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling tools should be used instead. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.