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. 'Search DNS blocklist entries' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the results take. For a search 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., matched entries, counts, or error handling), nor does it provide context about search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, wildcard support). For a tool with one parameter but rich operational context needed, this is inadequate.

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 'pattern' clearly documented as 'Pattern to search for in domains or descriptions'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage when 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 'Search DNS blocklist entries' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (DNS blocklist entries), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_dns_blocklist' or 'toggle_blocklist_entry', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific search tool versus other blocklist-related tools.

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. With siblings like 'list_dns_blocklist' (which presumably lists all entries) and 'toggle_blocklist_entry' (which modifies entries), there's no indication whether this tool is for filtered searches, partial matches, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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