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. It states the action but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, supports formats (e.g., JSON, CSV), or includes metadata. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 that performs a write operation (exporting to a file) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., file overwriting, error handling), output format, or success indicators. Given the complexity and absence of structured data, more context is needed for safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'path' documented as 'Export file path'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as path format requirements (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or file naming conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema adequately covers parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('all macros'), specifying the output format ('to a file'). It distinguishes from siblings like macro_list (which lists rather than exports) and macro_import (which imports rather than exports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from macro_analyze or macro_generate_tool, which might also involve macro processing.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing macros), compare to macro_list for viewing without export, or specify use cases like backup or migration. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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