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. 'Restore' implies a write operation that could be destructive, but the description doesn't warn about overwriting current configurations, requiring specific permissions, or potential system downtime. It also omits details on response format, error conditions, or idempotency, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 a restoration operation (potentially destructive, system-altering) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'configuration' entails, safety warnings, success/error responses, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'list_backups'). For a mutation tool with no structured support, more descriptive detail is needed.

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, with 'backupId' clearly documented as 'Backup ID to restore'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain backup IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Restore') and the resource ('a configuration backup'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_backup' and 'list_backups' by focusing on restoration rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets restored (e.g., system settings, network configurations), which prevents a perfect score.

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 backup from 'create_backup' or 'list_backups'), potential side effects, or when not to use it (e.g., during active operations). Without such context, the agent 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.