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. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, affects related resources, or has permission requirements. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap that could lead to unsafe usage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words—'Delete a saved macro' efficiently conveys the core action and target. It's appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like irreversible effects, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., success confirmation or side effects). For a mutation tool with no structured safety cues, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.

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 (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Macro ID'), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how to obtain the ID, its format, or validation rules. This meets the minimum viable level given the schema's completeness.

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 'Delete a saved macro' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (saved macro), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like macro_list, macro_play, and macro_export by specifying deletion rather than listing, executing, or exporting. However, it doesn't specify what a 'macro' is in this context or differentiate from other deletion tools like delete_firewall_rule or delete_vlan beyond the resource type.

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 macro ID from macro_list), exclusions (e.g., not for active macros), or comparisons to similar tools (e.g., macro_export for preservation before deletion). Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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