Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

fabric-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

aci_endpoint_trace

Trace an ACI endpoint's static fabric path from MAC or IP, revealing attachment, EPG, BD, VRF, contracts, and related faults.

Instructions

[READ] Reconstruct an ACI endpoint's static fabric path from its MAC or IP.

One call follows: endpoint → attachment (pod / leaf / interface or vPC) →
EPG → bridge domain → VRF → contracts the EPG provides/consumes → filter
entries, plus faults whose DN names the EPG or the attachment interface.
Every link is the relation APIC resolved (its tDn), so cross-tenant links
into 'common' are followed correctly.

How to read the result (do not over-state it):
  * It is NOT a reachability test. 'staticPathResolved: true' means the
    fabric is configured to carry the endpoint, not that traffic flows.
  * 'relatedFaultCandidates' are matched by DN only — proximity, not cause.
    Never report one as the reason for a problem. 'faults: null' means no
    fault scan succeeded (related faults unknown, not none); 'complete:
    false' means some scan failed, hit its page limit, or could not run.
  * 'tagRelations' in state 'missing-target' are policy-tag lookups and say
    nothing about the attachment path; do not report them as a path failure.
  * A section that is null with an entry in 'errors' was NOT read — never
    describe it as empty or absent. 'segmentResolved'/'staticPathResolved'
    are null in that case, not false.
  * A cleared fault keeps the description it had when raised; judge it by
    severity/lifecycle, not by its text.
  * 'contracts.complete: false' means a contract or filter was not read or
    not returned (its entry says 'read: false', 'exists: false' or has
    'entries: null') — its rules are unknown, not absent. The EPG → BD →
    VRF verdict is unaffected.
  * An 'epg' with 'supported: false' is a parent object this read does not
    trace (e.g. an L2Out external EPG) — the chain is undetermined, not broken.
  * 'notFound' means the fabric has not learned the address now, or it is in
    a tenant this account cannot see — not that the host is down.
  * 'notChecked' lists what this read does not evaluate (vzAny, taboo
    contracts, imported contracts, preferred-group peers, service graphs).

Args:
    mac: Endpoint MAC (any case; e.g. 00:50:56:AB:CD:EF). Pass mac OR ip.
    ip: Endpoint IPv4/IPv6 address. Pass mac OR ip.
    limit: Max matching endpoints to trace (default 5, max 20); the result
        carries returned/limit/truncated.
    fault_limit: Max related-fault candidates per endpoint (default 20).
    target: Target name from config (must be 'platform: aci').

Returns dict: {query, endpoints:[{endpoint, ips, attachment, attachmentFormed,
    tagRelations, epg, bd, vrf, contracts, segmentResolved, notChecked,
    relatedFaultCandidates, staticPathResolved, findings:[{rank, severity,
    signal, cause, action}], errors}], returned, limit, truncated,
    serverReportedMatches, lookupErrors, note, notFound?}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipNo
macNo
limitNo
targetNo
fault_limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it explains null-versus-false semantics, fault matching by DN only, the meaning of 'missing-target' tagRelations, incomplete contract reads, unsupported EPGs, and 'notFound' interpretation. This goes far beyond a generic summary and prevents serious misinterpretation.

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?

Though long, the description is densely packed with necessary operational details and is well-structured with a clear [READ] tag, bulleted caveats, and separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's complexity and by the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It documents all inputs, the returned dict structure, per-field semantics, failure modes, and interpretative traps. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results accurately.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Each parameter is explained with its role, format (e.g. MAC format, IP), defaults, constraints (limit max 20), and the mac-or-ip exclusivity rule. This is exactly the semantic detail the sparse schema lacks.

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 precise verb-plus-resource statement: 'Reconstruct an ACI endpoint's static fabric path from its MAC or IP.' It clearly explains the chain of objects the call follows and disambiguates the meaning of 'staticPathResolved', so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes and what it does not.

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 strong context for when this read applies, explicitly states it is NOT a reachability test, and enumerates what it does not evaluate ('notChecked'). It does not name alternative sibling tools or give explicit when-to-use versus when-to-avoid conditions, but the context is clear enough to prevent misuse.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools