get_opkg_statusCheck Entware/OPKG state to see which drive is bound, the initrc path, and whether /opt is mounted; if not, keenetic-mcp may stop working.
Entware/OPKG state: which drive is bound, the initrc path, and whether /opt is actually mounted. If opt_mounted is false, keenetic-mcp itself is running on borrowed time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by interpreting the output: a false opt_mounted value means the MCP server itself is at risk, which is non-obvious operational context an agent would not infer from annotations alone.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the reported fields before the diagnostic warning. Nothing is wasted, though 'borrowed time' is slightly figurative for a technical spec.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does name the key fields (bound drive, initrc path, opt_mounted). Exact field names and formats are left to the actual response, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is close to complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the result shape, which is the more useful place given no input exists.
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 names the resource (Entware/OPKG state) and enumerates exactly what is reported: bound drive, initrc path, and /opt mount status. That is specific enough that an agent knows precisely what this returns, though it relies on the tool name for the verb and no sibling is close enough to require differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other diagnostic tools such as get_system_info or get_config_state, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance. The 'borrowed time' sentence hints at why the result matters but does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.