Retrieve the country or wireless region code from the router to confirm regulatory settings. Use this read-only command to verify which regional configuration is active.
Country / wireless region code (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states 'read-only', which is a helpful behavioral hint. However, it does not elaborate on any side effects (even minor), or whether any permissions are needed, or what the format of the returned value is. For a read-only query with no annotations, it provides minimal but adequate transparency.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and the key behavioral note. No wasteful words. Ideal conciseness.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and behavior. It does that, but it is somewhat terse. Given the fact it's a read-only query with no params, it is mostly complete. Could benefit from a note about where the value is used or example values.
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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters applies, and the description does not repeat any schema details.
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 'Country / wireless region code' and marks it as read-only. This gives a clear purpose, but it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools that might also query system settings (e.g., sys_info, sys_version). More specificity could help avoid confusion.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large sibling set including many sys_* queries, an agent cannot determine when to prefer this over, say, sys_info or sys_version. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.