Retrieve LLDP neighbor details for a network device, including local port, remote hostname, and remote port, to map connections.
[READ] LLDP neighbors: local port, remote hostname, remote port.
Args: target: Device name from config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant with structured data. The description does add the return payload shape, which is useful for a read tool, but it omits behavior for the defaulted null target (does it query all devices or fail?) and any rate-limit or inventory-source caveats.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: the resource and payload lead, and the parameter note follows. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Args:' block formatting is boilerplate rather than tailored.
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?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is important and partially covers the gap. But the optional/defaulted target and the absence of any routing to get_lldp_neighbors_detail leave the definition barely sufficient for reliable invocation in a 35-tool suite.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain that target refers to a device name sourced 'from config' — more than the bare schema title 'Target' offers. However, it never clarifies that the parameter is optional with default null, nor what null means semantically, leaving a genuine ambiguity.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (LLDP neighbors) and enumerates the returned fields (local port, remote hostname, remote port), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_lldp_neighbors_detail, though the summary/detail split is inferable from naming.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this over get_lldp_neighbors_detail, get_interfaces, or get_mac_address_table, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only routing signal is the implicit 'summary' framing of the return fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.