cisco-pt-mcp

by 2001sithum

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.6
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct targets: device lifecycle, link management, configuration, simulation, and automation. The main source of ambiguity is the set of network-generation tools (generateNetworkFromDescription, buildNetworkFromDesign, generateCodeSnippet, executeBuilderCode), but their descriptions do clarify whether they design, build, or execute code.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb-noun style, such as addDevice, removeLink, configureIosDevice, getNetwork, and setSimulationMode. Even longer names like generateNetworkFromDescription and buildNetworkFromDesign extend the same predictable pattern.
Tool Count4/5
23 tools feels somewhat heavy, but the set covers several distinct functional areas: device management, cabling, configuration, simulation, PDU traffic, command logging, and PTBuilder automation. While a few tools could be consolidated, each area is represented and none feels completely redundant.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core lifecycle for devices and links, configuration, power control, simulation stepping, PDU sending/result checking, and scripted builder automation. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for removing configurations or setting specific interface VLANs, but most network-building and troubleshooting workflows are reachable.
Average 3.8/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic power on/off action and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens if the device is already in the target state. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing no waste. 'Power a device on or off' directly conveys the purpose and scope. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema already documenting the two parameters, this is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover important contextual information. Yet it only states the basic action and omits details about what the tool returns, what happens on success or failure, and any dependencies such as requiring an already-configured device. The description is too bare for a mutating operation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, and the boolean parameter 'power' has a clear description ('true = power on, false = power off'). The 'deviceName' description is minimal but another agent still knows it identifies a device. The description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description 'Power a device on or off' states a specific verb (power), a resource (device), and the possible outcomes (on/off). It is clear enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or mention any constraints on which devices it applies to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, and there are no prerequisites or context. It merely states the action, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate scenarios and any conditions under which the tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns device details, interfaces, and incident links, and the 'get' prefix implies a read-only operation. However, it omits any mention of error behavior, permissions, or return format.
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?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful output details. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient: it states what the tool returns and implies the target is a single device. However, it lacks parameter format guidance, output structure details, and any mention of preconditions, making it acceptable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines deviceName as a string and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the acceptable format, whether it is a name or ID, or how the value relates to existing devices. It provides no meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves detailed information about a single device, including interfaces and incident links. It identifies the resource and the general purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getNetwork or the various device-modifying tools. The phrase 'one device' implies scope, but does not state when this tool is preferred or what cases it is not suited for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 reveals that the operation is destructive (removes devices) but does not say whether removal is reversible, what happens to linked modules or connections, or how failure is handled (e.g., if a device name does not exist). An agent could destroy network state without knowing the side effects.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The core action ('Remove') and target ('devices') appear first, and the workspace scope is included efficiently. There is no redundancy with the parameter schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description leaves critical behavior unclear: what happens to linked modules or connections, whether the action is irreversible, and what occurs when a named device does not exist. Even though the single parameter is documented, the description omits the consequences that an agent needs to make safe call decisions.
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 description coverage is 100% because the deviceNames parameter is already explained as 'Array of existing device names to remove.' The description's 'one or more devices' merely paraphrases the schema's type and does not add substantive information about validation, format rules, or error behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one or more devices' with the scope 'from the workspace.' This is unambiguous and differentiates the tool from the sibling 'removeLink,' which removes links rather than devices, so an agent can identify the right operation without needing to open the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like removeLink, addDevice, or renameDevice. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which removeDevice is preferred, so an agent is left to infer the use case from the function name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Configure IP settings' indicates a mutating operation, but it does not disclose whether the entire existing IP configuration is replaced, whether the device must be reachable or powered on, or whether settings are applied to a specific interface. The description reveals almost no behavior beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices explanatory richness. The size itself is appropriate; the lack of details is already captured in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse to be considered complete. It does not clarify behavior around the dhcpEnabled/static settings combination, does not mention preconditions such as whether the PC must already exist or be powered, and does not prepare the agent for side effects. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not compensate for the missing behavioral context.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameters already have meaningful descriptions ('IP address (if static)', 'True for DHCP, false static IP'). The description adds no new parameter insight, which is acceptable when the schema does the heavy lifting, so this is a baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Configure IP settings') and a specific resource ('a PC or end device'), which clearly separates it from configureIosDevice, the likely sibling for routers and switches. Even without reading the schema, an agent can tell this tool is for host device IP configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when configuring IP settings on a PC or end device. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as configureIosDevice for network infrastructure devices. The guidance is present but only as inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only lists PTBuilder functions and highlights batch operations, but never discloses that arbitrary code execution can have wide-ranging network/workstate effects, whether changes are reversible, whether there are safety risks, or what the execution result looks like. Given that this is a raw-code-execution tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and the second provides the use case. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it misses an opportunity to add a terse safety or return-value qualifier.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and there are no annotations, so the description must be the single source of context. It fails to mention whether the code returns a value, how failures surface, whether the execution is synchronous, or whether it can mutate the topology in irreversible ways. For a code-execution tool with one parameter and many sibling alternatives, this leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The code parameter has 100% schema description coverage, explicitly defining function signatures like addDevice(name, model, x, y) and configurePcIp(...). The tool description only repeats 'like addDevice, addLink...' without adding extra syntax, limits, or examples, so it does not add meaningful value 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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Execute PTBuilder JavaScript code in Packet Tracer'. It also lists examples like addDevice and configurePcIp, and implicitly differentiates itself from single-action sibling tools via 'batch operations and programmatic network building'. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool it is not, so it stops just short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'useful for batch operations and programmatic network building' provides a clear use context, suggesting when an agent should combine multiple actions through this tool rather than calling individual add/modify tools. It does not give explicit exclusions or mention alternatives like generateCodeSnippet, so it does not earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. "Remove" clearly implies a destructive/mutating operation, and the endpoint note adds some semantic context, but the description does not clarify what happens to dependent links, whether removal is idempotent, or whether the operation can be undone.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, and it starts with the primary action. Every phrase earns its place and the endpoint clarification is kept brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks usage context, explicit link-to-endpoint mapping, and any behavior about nonexistent links or partial inputs. An agent could call it correctly for a straightforward case but may still mis-specify the input shape.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that the parameter is an array of device/port endpoints. The description adds the useful notion that each entry identifies an endpoint, but it still leaves ambiguity about whether a cable removal requires one or two endpoint entries.
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?
The description states a clear action ("Remove one or more cables") and identifies the resource as link/cable entries, which is distinct from siblings like addLink and removeDevice. However, it slightly blurs the model by saying each entry is an endpoint of a link without fully specifying how entries group into link removals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use removeLink versus removeDevice, addLink, or other topology tools. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the device must already exist and that the new name must be unique in the workspace, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what happens when uniqueness is violated.
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?
The description is two brief sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical uniqueness constraint follows immediately.
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?
For a simple two-parameter rename operation with no output schema, the description plus the well-described schema is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. More detail on failure modes would improve it, but it is not a blocking gap.
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?
The input schema already covers both parameters clearly: deviceName is the current name and newName is the new unique name. The description adds only modest context by specifying uniqueness within the workspace, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rename an existing device.' The action is immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools like addDevice or removeDevice, though it does not explicitly name a different alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it should be used when an existing device needs its name changed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this calls an external AI service (Gemini), requires an API key, and returns a full network design. It does not state whether generation can produce side effects, whether auto_build=true modifies the workspace, latency/cost expectations, or non-deterministic variability of AI output.
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?
Two tight, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose and input type, and the second covers the return value and prerequisite. No redundant fluff; the API-key requirement is included without disrupting readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys input type, external dependency, and the broad shape of the return value, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it is missing important execution context: whether auto_build=true creates persistent side effects in Packet Tracer, what happens if the API key is missing, and whether the design output is directly consumable by buildNetworkFromDesign.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains description and auto_build well. The tool description reinforces the 'natural language description' concept and hints at design content, but it adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('generate a complete network topology') using a specific input ('natural language description') and clarifies what the result includes: devices, links, IP addressing, and configurations. The 'natural language' input distinguishes this from builder-focused siblings such as buildNetworkFromDesign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it reasonably clear that this tool is for natural-language-to-network generation, and it gives a hard prerequisite (GEMINI_API_KEY or config file). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer an alternative like buildNetworkFromDesign or when to avoid this tool, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It says the operation builds a network, but it does not disclose that the tool may clear the existing network when clear_existing is true, nor does it mention side effects, failure modes, or mutation scope. The destructive behavior is only visible in the schema, not in the description.
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?
The description is three front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second names the input shape, and the third clarifies the main use cases. Every clause adds useful context.
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?
The nested input schema is detailed and fully covers the design object's fields, and the description adds the use-case framing. The main gaps are lack of explicit side-effect disclosure and no indication of what the operation returns, but the schema plus description are enough for competent invocation in most cases.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description names the device/link/configuration content of the design object but adds little meaning beyond it, and it does not enrich the meaning of clear_existing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly names a concrete verb and resource: 'Build a complete network in Packet Tracer'. It also states the input form—a JSON design with devices, links, and configurations—which distinguishes this bulk-building tool from the piecewise sibling tools like addDevice, addModule, and addLink.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: importing designs and building from AI-generated specifications. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid or say 'when not to use', but the intended scenarios are direct enough for an agent to route to this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals important behavioral side effects: 'Powers the device off, installs the module, powers it back on.' This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover edge cases like slot occupancy, module compatibility, or exact errors.
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?
The description is very tight, first sentence stating the operation and the second outlining the step-by-step device effect. Every sentence is informative, with no repetition or filler.
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?
For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and a significant side effect. It does not state the return value or confirmation behavior, but the overall critical usage guidance is in place.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so it already documents 'slot', 'model', and 'deviceName'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Add') with a specific resource ('interface module') and a target ('to a device'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like addDevice or addLink. It also provides a concrete outcome without referencing the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—when adding an interface module to an existing device—but does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or contrast with addDevice or addLink. The schema's 'Existing device name' adds context but isn't part of the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: commands are executed from global config and persisted using 'write memory'. There are no annotations to lean on and the text does not disclose failure behavior, what happens on invalid commands, or whether command output is returned.
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?
Two sentences carry all essential information: action, target, execution context, and persistence behavior. There is no redundant wording or restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important factors: target device class, command type, mode of execution, and persistence. It does not mention preconditions like device existence or authentication, but these are reasonably outside the scope of a simple command execution tool.
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 only 50%, with 'commands' documented but 'deviceName' undocumented. The description adds miniature context by implying commands are IOS commands sent to a router/switch, but it does not sufficiently explain the deviceName parameter or its relationship with network inventory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Execute IOS commands' plus 'router or switch,' which makes the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinguished from the PC/IP-focused sibling (configurePcIp) by mentioning IOS and network-grade devices.
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?
The description provides clear context about where the command run and what context they execute in, which tells an agent this is for configuring IOS networking devices rather than PCs or simulation controls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list negative cases, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does state this is a 'Read' operation, implying non-destructive behavior, and mentions optional filtering. However, it does not disclose error behavior, empty-log handling, or whether any state is affected, which matters more in the absence of annotation hints.
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?
Two sentence fragments carry all the necessary purpose and option detail with no fluff. The core action 'Read' appears first, followed by the optional parameters. No redundant wording or repeated schema information is present.
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?
For a simple read-only log tool with only two optional parameters and full schema documentation, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It does not describe the response structure, but no output schema exists and the concept of 'returned entries' in the description gives a basic expectation of a list result.
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?
The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the after-mentioned 'filter by device name and cap ... returned entries' adds little beyond what the schema provides. It confirms that both parameters are optional, but the schema already states that with an empty required list and per-parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb—'Read'—and identifies an exact resource: 'the IOS command history logged by Packet Tracer.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling getters like getNetwork, getDeviceInfo, and getPduResults because none of them are described as reading logged command history.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to inspect simulator IOS command history, optionally filtered by device. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, but no sibling tool offers the same log-reading capability, so the absence of a comparison does not confuse selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Query' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the enumerated fields fully describe what the caller will observe. It could add edge-case behavior, but for a zero-parameter status query this is a minor gap.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the operation ('Query the current simulation state') and lists the relevant output dimensions. There is no filler, repetition, or vague language.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core information an agent needs: it clearly identifies a read-only status query and the fields it returns. Adding an example return shape or describing behavior when no simulation is active would make it fully complete, but the current definition is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema information needing enrichment. The description avoids inventing unneeded parameter details and instead clarifies the meaningful return fields, which is appropriate at the baseline level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear query verb and resource ('simulation state') and enumerates exactly what is returned: mode, elapsed time, PDU frame count, and current frame index. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like getPduResults or getCommandLog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus getNetwork, getDeviceInfo, or getPduResults. The context makes the general purpose obvious, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It honestly communicates that the tool mutates the device's position, which is the primary behavior. However, it does not disclose whether connections/links are preserved, whether the old position is fully overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is adequate but minimal.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to immediately understand the purpose.
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?
For a simple mutation tool with three required parameters and no nested/output schemas, the description combined with the schema is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks details about error cases or return behavior, but those are not needed to choose or call the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already provides direct descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the canvas context and does not clarify coordinate-system details, bounds, or the relationship between x and y beyond what the schema already says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Move'), a resource ('a device'), and a target ('new coordinates on the logical workspace canvas'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like adding, removing, renaming, configuring, or powering devices.
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?
The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: whenever a device needs to be repositioned on the logical workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list contains no alternative move/reposition tool, so the intended use is clear and unambiguous enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The first sentence frames the action as opening an interface, but the description does not explicitly state that this tool itself does not execute code; the editor merely allows future user-driven execution. That boundary is important given the sibling executeBuilderCode.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence carries the core operation, and the second adds purpose and context. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description provides enough context: what it opens, where, and why. It is not fully complete because it does not clarify the relationship with executeBuilderCode, specifically that this tool only opens the editor rather than running scripts itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, and the description cannot add parameter-level meaning there is nothing to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description's workflow context is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Open') and a precise resource ('PTBuilder code editor interface in Packet Tracer'), and explains the editor's purpose. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like executeBuilderCode, which run code rather than present the editor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context—this is a web editor for writing and executing JavaScript—so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or that code execution belongs to executeBuilderCode, so the alternative routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context — simulation mode is a prerequisite for PDU sending/stepping — but it doesn't disclose whether switching modes is idempotent, whether toggling back to realtime clears in-progress simulation state or pending events, or what the call returns. These are meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: the action and its domain are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains why the tool matters operationally. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and why the simulation mode prerequisite matters. It's slightly incomplete regarding call side effects and the behavior when already in the target mode, but the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage keep these gaps minor.
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%: the only parameter, toSimMode, already has an explicit true/false mapping in its description. The tool description adds the context of why setting it to true matters, but no additional parameter-level semantics are needed — this is the baseline 3 case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (switch) and a precise resource (Packet Tracer between simulation and realtime modes). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like getSimulationStatus (reads status), stepSimulation (advances traffic), and sendPdu (sends traffic) because it is the setter for the mode itself.
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?
Gives a clear context for when to use it: simulation mode is required before sending PDUs or stepping traffic, which directly maps to the sendPdu and stepSimulation siblings. It doesn't explicitly call out alternatives (e.g., checking getSimulationStatus first) or state when it should NOT be called, but the intended usage is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavior and does convey that this tool mutates simulation state, including a destructive 'reset entirely' option. It also provides the crucial precondition of being in simulation mode. However, it leaves side effects of backward stepping and the exact reset outcome slightly implicit, relying on the schema for reset behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences, each earning their place: the first states the full action space; the second states the one critical precondition. There is no filler, redundancy, or bloated explanation.
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?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is nearly complete. It covers direction, steps, and the crucial setSimulationMode prerequisite, and the schema already explains the reset semantics. The only minor gap is a lack of detail on what counts as a 'step' in terms of network/PDU behavior, which is not necessary for invoking it correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented with direction enum values, step bounds, and the default. The description only repeats direction words from the schema and adds no new semantic meaning to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because structured data handles parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific action verb ('step') and resource ('the simulation') with explicit modes: forward, backward, or reset. It clearly differentiates from sibling setSimulationMode (mode setup) by stating simulation mode must already be active. An agent can determine what this tool does without inspecting the schema.
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?
It explicitly states the precondition: 'PT must already be in simulation mode' and directs the agent to use setSimulationMode first. This is clear usage context, though it does not enumerate when to prefer alternatives like sendPdu or getSimulationStatus. For a state-stepping tool, the mode prerequisite is the most important guidance and is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key side effect — 'Automatically enables simulation mode if not already active' — which goes beyond the input schema and helps agents anticipate system state changes. More detail about failure conditions (e.g., missing devices) would be useful but is not strictly necessary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional sentences about simulation mode and follow-up tools earn their place because they guide correct usage. It is not maximally tight, but it has no filler.
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?
The tool is simple with only two string parameters, and the description covers the creation action, the automatic simulation enabling, and the expected follow-up tools for result checking. In the absence of an output schema, the mention of getPduResults helps fill the result-reporting gap. It does not explain error conditions, but for this low-complexity tool the overall picture is complete enough.
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%, so sourceDevice and destinationDevice are already fully described as device names. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, but that is acceptable given the complete schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('ICMP ping PDU'), and the target ('between two devices'), making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stepSimulation and getPduResults by positioning them as follow-up steps.
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?
Provides clear operational guidance: it explains that simulation mode is enabled automatically and directs the agent to use stepSimulation and getPduResults for the full workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the intended usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the tool mutates the workspace by adding a device and explicitly states the uniqueness constraint for deviceName. However, it does not describe what happens if a duplicate is submitted, whether the operation can fail, or what response is returned on success.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the meaningful usage caveat about uniqueness follows immediately. Every sentence adds necessary operational value.
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?
For a simple four-parameter add operation, the description, schema, and uniqueness guidance cover most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps include lack of explicit failure semantics on duplicate names and no mention of return/result behavior, but these do not prevent correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by telling the agent to call getNetwork first to verify deviceName availability, which directly informs correct parameter selection. This slightly exceeds the high-schema-coverage baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Add a network device') and a specific resource ('workspace'). The tool's purpose is immediately clear and it is naturally distinguishable from sibling tools like addModule, addLink, and removeDevice, which target different objects or operations.
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?
The description gives a concrete usage instruction: call getNetwork first if unsure whether deviceName is already taken. This is good when-to-use guidance for avoiding a likely failure, though it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool. Since the action is so specific, this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool calls an external AI model, requires credentials (GEMINI_API_KEY or a config file), and returns executable JavaScript code without claiming to execute it. It does not discuss failure modes or cost, but it does convey side effects and prerequisites.
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?
The definition is a single compact sentence plus a key prerequisite. The most important purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information: AI mechanism, output, and required credentials. There is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single required parameter, the complete schema coverage, and the absence of annotations, the description includes all essential call-time information: input, output, tool purpose, and the credential requirement. An agent can successfully invoke this tool without needing additional context.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single 'description' parameter with an example and 100% coverage. The tool description adds a high-level mention of natural language input, but it mainly mirrors what the schema already provides. This is adequate but does not significantly go beyond structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('generate'), the resource type ('PTBuilder JavaScript code'), and the source ('a natural language description'). It also names the AI mechanism (Gemini), which distinguishes this code-generation tool from the network-mutation 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?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for turning a natural language description into PTBuilder JavaScript code, which implies the core use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives like generateNetworkFromDescription or executeBuilderCode, so it lacks explicit exclusions and alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' communicates a non-mutating operation, statuses are enumerated, and the simulation-scoped state is disclosed. It does not discuss edge cases like running before any simulation step, but this is not a significant omission for this tool.
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 sentences with no fluff: a front-loaded definition, a clear usage directive, and a compact parameter tip. Every sentence adds useful information.
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?
Given no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the tool's purpose, expected usage timing, and the return fields sufficiently. It does not describe formatting or behavior when no PDUs have been produced, but for this scope it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the types parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical intent of the filter: showing only ICMP/TCP and hiding STP/DTP background noise.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the outcome of PDUs in the current simulation', and enumerates the fields returned (source, destination, traffic type, status). It distinguishes itself from sibling simulation tools by framing the tool as the post-step verification read.
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?
It explicitly instructs when to call the tool: 'Call after stepSimulation to verify connectivity.' It also gives a concrete filtering guideline for ignoring STP/DTP background noise, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only state snapshot and specifies what information is included (devices, interfaces, cable topology). It does not discuss failure modes or exact output format, but for a zero-parameter read operation the key behavioral traits are disclosed.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior and output contents, and the second sentence adds direct usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-style workspace snapshot with no annotations, the description gives an agent all it needs: what the tool returns, the scope of the data, and guidance for when to invoke it. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear, specific function: it returns a snapshot of the entire workspace, enumerating devices, interfaces with in_use flags, and cables. It differentiates from the likely narrower getDeviceInfo tool by emphasizing workspace-wide scope.
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?
The description explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool: before addLink or removeDevice when the current state is uncertain. It does not discuss when not to use it or how it compares to every sibling, but the stated usage guidance is clear and actionable for the most relevant operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a meaningful precondition: interfaces must not already be in use, and it tells the agent where to verify this. It does not explain failure behavior if the precondition is violated, but it is still well above the minimum.
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?
The description is extremely compact: two sentences, both useful, no filler. The precondition is front-loaded and the verification guidance is given right after.
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?
The description is sufficient for a moderate-complexity mutation tool with no output schema. It gives the endpoint names, interface precondition, and verification path. It does not describe failure behavior or mention any state changes beyond creating the link, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes linkType and interface structure, and the description adds important extra semantics by tying interface validity to in_use=false in getNetwork output. This meaningfully supplements the parameter information beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Connect two devices with a cable.' This makes the tool's function immediately obvious and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addDevice and removeLink.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear precondition: both interfaces must be free, and it explains how to verify that using getNetwork. It also tells the agent to call getNetwork first if unsure, which is explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cisco-pt-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2001sithum/cisco-pt-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2001sithum/cisco-pt-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cisco-pt-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2001sithum/cisco-pt-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/2001sithum/cisco-pt-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/2001sithum/cisco-pt-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server