Enable a specific WAN interface on a DrayTek Vigor 3912S router. Requires confirmation to apply the change.
Enable a WAN interface (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wan | Yes | ||
| 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on the confirmation flow (e.g., how confirm_token and confirmation_id are used), side effects, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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, concise sentence that avoids fluff and front-loads the primary action. However, it lacks any structured breakdown, and the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
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 5 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation mechanism, parameter roles, expected behavior, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to call this 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% and the description mentions none of the five parameters. The agent has no explanation of what 'wan', 'user_code', 'acknowledge', 'confirm_token', or 'confirmation_id' mean or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.
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 states the action 'Enable a WAN interface' with a specific resource and a note about being a write operation. It is distinct from obvious siblings like wan_disable and status tools, so an agent can infer the basic purpose without opening the schema.
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 such as wan_disable or wan_status. It mentions 'requires confirmation' but does not explain the context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.