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. It states the action ('generate') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, how the output is formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool that likely creates definitions, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (generating definitions likely involves output formatting) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated tool definition looks like, how it's returned, or any side effects. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves critical gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (id and save). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'macro' is or how the save option affects file output. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate an MCP tool definition from a macro'. It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('MCP tool definition'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like macro_analyze, macro_play, or macro_list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from macro_export or macro_import, which might also involve tool definitions, so it's not a perfect 5.

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), compare it to sibling tools like macro_export or macro_play, or specify scenarios where generation is appropriate. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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