Skip to main content
Glama

PacketFabric

pf_call_endpoint

Read-only

Call any PacketFabric API endpoint by operation_id.

Reads run immediately. Writes (create/modify/delete — may create billable services)
are only possible when the server was started with PF_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and return a
dry-run preview unless confirm=true. Always show the user the preview and get explicit
approval before re-calling with confirm=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON request body for POST/PUT/PATCH.
fieldsNoOnly return these keys from each item (dot paths allowed, e.g. 'interfaces'). Omit for all.
paramsNoPath and query parameters by name, e.g. {'port_circuit_id': 'PF-AP-LAX1-1234', 'since': '1 day ago'}. Lists are sent as repeated query params.
confirmNoRequired true to actually execute a write. Without it, writes return a preview only.
max_itemsNoCap on list items returned.
operation_idYesFrom pf_search_endpoints.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says writes can create/modify/delete and may create billable services when PF_ALLOW_WRITES=true. That directly contradicts the read-only annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences front-load the core dispatcher purpose and the write-safety rule. No filler; the approval instruction is essential.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Has an output schema, high schema coverage, and covers the crucial write-gating/confirm behavior. Still, as a generic open-world API caller it could say more about auth/error behavior, but the key invocation guidance is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a schema description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds confirm workflow and operation_id sourcing but little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: call any PacketFabric API endpoint using operation_id. It points to pf_search_endpoints as the source of operation_id, but does not explicitly contrast with pf_describe_endpoint or other siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains read vs write behavior and the required preview/approval flow before confirm=true. It gives clear conditions but no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing beyond sourcing operation_id from pf_search_endpoints.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources