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 states 'List all saved macros,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether it returns a simple list or detailed metadata, if there are pagination or rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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: 'List all saved macros.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. This makes it easy to parse and understand 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a read-only listing tool, this is a basic but incomplete description that leaves the agent to infer missing information.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description accurately reflects the lack of inputs, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' which would be a minor enhancement.

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 'List all saved macros' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('saved macros'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like macro_analyze, macro_delete, macro_play, etc., which perform different operations on macros. However, it doesn't specify scope or format details that would make it fully specific (e.g., 'List all saved macros with their names and descriptions').

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, context for usage, or differentiate from similar listing tools (e.g., list_backups, list_firewall_rules). Without such guidance, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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