Connect logical endpoints via the shortest switch path, and reject the entire route if any unsafe condition exists.
Connect two logical endpoints by the shortest switch path. Refused whole if unsafe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| to_endpoint | Yes | ||
| from_endpoint | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Refused whole if unsafe' usefully discloses that the operation is all-or-nothing on safety failure, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether existing routes are affected, authentication requirements, or reversibility.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the essential safety behavior without unnecessary detail.
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 operation is a state-changing routing action with no annotations, yet the description omits prerequisites, token semantics, endpoint format, and what 'unsafe' means. An output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the agent still lacks key details needed to call this reliably.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that from_endpoint and o_endpoint are 'logical endpoints', but does not explain the token parameter, value formats, or any constraints. This leaves a required parameter under-specified.
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?
States a clear action ('Connect two logical endpoints') with an explicit resource and a distinctive routing strategy ('shortest switch path'). It distinguishes itself from unroute_signal and list_routes by being the actual connection action, though it does not name a sibling.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of plan_route for planning, set_crosspoint for manual switching, or unroute_signal for teardown, so an agent gets no help choosing among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.