OpenWRT SSH MCP Server

Does 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 states the action ('install') but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., system changes, dependencies installation), permissions required, error conditions (e.g., package not found), or output format. For a mutation tool 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('install a package'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a package installation tool (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 100%, with the parameter 'package_name' fully documented in the schema (including an example). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('install') and resource ('a package'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'opkg_remove' (uninstall) and 'opkg_list_installed' (list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'opkg_update' (update packages) or 'opkg_info' (get package info), which are related but distinct operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing 'opkg_update' first for fresh package lists), when not to use it (e.g., for already installed packages), or comparisons to siblings like 'opkg_info' for checking package details before installation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.