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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detect patterns and parameters,' which hints at a read-only analysis function, but doesn't specify if it's safe, what the output looks like, or any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the macro). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sentence ('Analyze a macro to detect patterns and parameters') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by including context or usage hints, but it's appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 (analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'patterns and parameters' are detected, the format or nature of the analysis results, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns insights, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('id') clearly documented as 'Macro ID.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Analyze a macro to detect patterns and parameters'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('macro'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like macro_list, macro_play, or macro_generate_tool, nor does it explain what 'patterns and parameters' means in this context.

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 an existing macro), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like macro_list (which might list macros) or macro_play (which might execute them). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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