OPNSense MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Plan' implies a read-only preview operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what the planning output looks like, whether it validates configurations, or if it has side effects. The dryRun parameter suggests preview behavior, but this isn't explained in the description itself.

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, efficient phrase that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, though it could be more informative given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'planning' entails operationally, what format the plan output takes, or how this tool fits into a deployment workflow. The context signals indicate this is a moderately complex tool that needs more descriptive context than provided.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any extra semantic meaning.

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 'Plan infrastructure deployment changes' states a general purpose (planning changes) but lacks specificity about what 'infrastructure deployment' entails or what kind of changes are planned. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'iac_apply_deployment' and 'iac_destroy_deployment' by the 'plan' verb, but doesn't clarify what differentiates it from other planning or analysis tools in the sibling list.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it's for planning before applying deployments, the description doesn't explicitly state this relationship with 'iac_apply_deployment' or mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or when not to use it.

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