OPNSense MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create a new VLAN' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., network disruption), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence ('Create a new VLAN'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a tool with a clear name and good schema coverage, this brevity is efficient and appropriate.

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 complexity of a network configuration tool (creating VLANs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what happens after creation (e.g., VLAN activation), return values, or error scenarios, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (description, interface, pcp, tag) with their types and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Create a new VLAN' clearly states the action (create) and resource (VLAN), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what a VLAN entails in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_vlan' or 'delete_vlan' beyond the basic verb difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing interface details), when not to use it (e.g., for modifying existing VLANs), or refer to sibling tools like 'update_vlan' or 'delete_vlan' for context.

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