Reset all user profiles to factory defaults on a DrayTek Vigor router. Use after configuration errors or before repurposing the device to restore a clean state.
Reset all user profiles to factory default (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | No | ||
| acknowledge | 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a write operation, that it affects all user profiles, and that confirmation is required, which is important safety context. It does not state that the reset is permanent or explain the confirmation token flow in detail.
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 one tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the risk warning in a parenthetical. Every element earns its place and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It never reconciles 'all user profiles' with the user_code parameter or explains how to obtain and use confirmation_id and confirm_token.
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 explains none of the four parameters. The phrase 'requires confirmation' hints at acknowledge/confirm_token/confirmation_id, but it does not clarify their roles, whether they are required, or what user_code selects.
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 specific action ('Reset'), a clear resource ('all user profiles'), and the target state ('factory default'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from the many read-only sibling tools and from user_set/user_edit by emphasizing a full reset.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of user_set, user_edit, or user_account, and no mention of prerequisites or how the confirmation flow is triggered. The description labels it as a write operation but does not explain the expected context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.