OPNSense MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what happens during recording (e.g., which API calls are captured, if there are time limits, or how to stop it). For a tool that initiates a stateful process, 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making 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 complexity of initiating a macro recording process, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interact with the recording once started, or any behavioral nuances, leaving critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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, clearly documenting the 'name' and 'description' parameters. The tool description doesn't add any extra semantic details about these parameters, such as formatting constraints or usage context, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start recording API calls') and the purpose ('to create a macro'), making the tool's function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'macro_stop_recording' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 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 like 'macro_play' or 'macro_import', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for starting a recording. It lacks explicit usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer timing 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.