Create guest WiFi access vouchers with custom duration, optional notes, and configurable count for guest access.
Create a guest WiFi voucher
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional note for the voucher | |
| count | No | Number of vouchers to create (default: 1) | |
| minutes | Yes | Duration in minutes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. 'Create' correctly implies a mutating operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when creating multiple vouchers. The one-line description only states the action without behavioral context.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb and object. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and contains no redundant information.
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?
The tool is low-complexity with complete schema coverage for its required parameters, making a minimal call possible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., voucher codes) or any operational context. It is adequate but leaves behavioral and result-related 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents all three parameters: note, count, and minutes. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but the schema handles that responsibility adequately. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('guest WiFi voucher'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from siblings like create_user_group because no other sibling targets vouchers. This is a strong, unambiguous purpose statement.
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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. While there is no obvious sibling for voucher creation, the tool does not explain when an agent should choose it, such as when generating guest access credentials. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.