OpenWRT SSH MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the output is 'limited to 500 packages', which is useful context not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks other important details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., network issues), or response format, leaving gaps in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List available packages') and adds a critical constraint ('limited to 500 packages'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key limitation (500-package limit), but for a tool with no structured fields, it could benefit from more context like output format or error conditions. It meets the minimum viable standard with clear gaps.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing any. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case correctly without unnecessary information.

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 ('List') and resource ('available packages from repositories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openwrt_opkg_list_installed' by specifying 'available' packages. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'openwrt_opkg_info'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 repository access), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'openwrt_opkg_list_installed' for installed packages. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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