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 of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a read operation, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what format the configuration data is returned in. For a tool that reads system configuration files, this represents significant gaps in behavioral 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 extremely concise with just one sentence that contains all essential information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the allowed configurations without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is reasonably complete about what the tool does. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention what format the configuration data is returned in (e.g., raw text, structured data) and any important constraints or prerequisites for accessing these configuration files.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter that's fully documented in the schema with enum values, the description adds value by explicitly listing the allowed configs in the description text itself. This reinforces the parameter constraints but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Read') and resource ('UCI configuration file'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying allowed configs. It differentiates from tools like openwrt_get_system_info or openwrt_get_firewall_rules by focusing on raw configuration file reading rather than processed system information.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by listing the allowed configuration types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when processed data might be preferred over raw config files.

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