Set up OpenVPN configuration on the router. This write action requires confirmation to apply changes.
OpenVPN configuration (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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that confirmation is required, which is useful. However, it does not explain what the confirmation flow entails, what side effects writing the configuration may have, or whether the change is reversible.
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 short, front-loaded with the write nature, and contains no filler. It is appropriately compact, though the terseness comes at the cost of meaningful operational detail.
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 mutation command with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not sufficient. The agent cannot determine what value to pass in 'param', how to complete the confirmation flow, or how this relates to the many VPN sibling tools.
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 must compensate, but it provides no meaning for any parameter. The required 'param' field is completely opaque, and user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are left unexplained despite being central to the confirmation behavior mentioned.
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 clearly identifies the operation as a write and the resource as OpenVPN configuration, so an agent knows this mutates VPN config rather than reading it. It does not differentiate from write siblings like vpn_setup or vpn_remote, but the core purpose is understandable.
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 instead of alternatives such as vpn_setup, vpn_remote, or vpn_dial_out. No conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to guess which configuration scenario this applies to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.