OPNSense MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Destroy' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether destruction is immediate, requires confirmation, affects dependencies, or has side effects. The 'force' parameter hints at optional safeguards, but this isn't explained in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks context on what 'destroy' entails (e.g., permanent deletion, cleanup processes), expected outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like 'iac_apply_deployment'. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent usage.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'deploymentId' refers to, how to obtain it, or the implications of the 'force' flag. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Destroy deployed resources' clearly states the action (destroy) and target (deployed resources), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_firewall_rule' or 'delete_vlan' by specifying what type of resources (e.g., infrastructure deployments) are affected.

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 a deployment ID from 'iac_list_resource_types' or 'iac_plan_deployment'), nor does it warn against misuse (e.g., irreversible destruction).

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