cisco-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or protocol: EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, CDP, and LLDP neighbors are clearly separated, and other tools cover unique aspects like CPU, memory, VLANs, or MAC tables. Even run_show_command is unambiguous because it is the generic fallback, while the specific getters are purpose-built for their particular show command.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vast majority follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern (e.g., get_cpu, get_vlans). Two exceptions exist: list_devices uses a different verb, and run_show_command is a non-get generic action. These are minor deviations that do not obscure the overall structure, but they prevent a perfect score.
Tool Count3/5
With 25 tools, this set sits in the 16-25 range that feels heavy for a tool surface. While each tool is justified for network monitoring, the count is above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, making it borderline excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers the read-only monitoring domain for Cisco devices, including neighbors, inventory, performance metrics, Layer 2/3 state, and configuration. The inclusion of run_show_command ensures there are no dead ends—any missing show command can be executed through this generic escape hatch.
Average 3.6/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. The inclusion of platform commands hints at behavior but does not sufficiently disclose traits like error handling or scoping.
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 concise with two sentences and platform-specific command snippets. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted content.
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 show command with an output schema present, the description states the core purpose and underlying commands, which is adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'link-aggregation state' includes (e.g., member ports, protocol status), nor any limitations or platform differences beyond the command mapping.
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 schema has one required parameter 'device' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description does not mention the device parameter at all, leaving its meaning to be inferred from the name. This provides minimal 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 'Show link-aggregation state' with a clear verb and resource, and the platform-specific commands add specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_interfaces or run_show_command, though the name and content make it fairly clear.
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 such as run_show_command or get_interface_status. It only lists underlying CLI commands, which implies usage but offers no exclusions or selection criteria.
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 burden of disclosing behavior. The mention of 'show ip arp' indicates this is a read-only show command, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what the output contains, whether it works only on certain devices, or any side effects beyond being a read operation.
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 that directly states the purpose and even includes the command syntax. There is no fluff or redundant wording; every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain the role of the 'device' parameter or when to use this specific tool over siblings, so an agent might not know how to invoke it correctly in all contexts. It is minimally viable but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the 'device' parameter but provides no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining that the ARP table is fetched for a specified device, but it fails to do so. The parameter name 'device' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the ARP table'. It also includes the underlying command ('show ip arp'), which unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like get_mac_address_table or get_routing_table.
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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with related tools such as run_show_command or get_mac_address_table. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by mentioning 'show interfaces', but it does not explicitly state that it is safe/non-destructive or disclose any context like authentication requirements or potential performance effects. The description is transparent at a basic level but lacks richness.
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 that earns its place. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the underlying command without any extraneous content.
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 and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool, how it relates to sibling tools, or any behavioral caveats. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects a viable but incomplete description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'device' with no description coverage (0%). The description does not mention the device parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what value to provide or why it is required. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level 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 'Show interface details' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_interface_status or get_interface_status by focusing on full details. The parenthetical reference to 'show interfaces' reinforces the exact command being executed.
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 such as get_interface_status, run_show_command, or other get_* tools. It does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts.
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 present, so the description must handle transparency. While 'Show' implies a read-only operation, it does not disclose whether device credentials are required, whether it modifies device state, or any potential side effects like timeouts. It adds little beyond the obvious non-mutating nature of the command.
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, short sentence that is directly to the point. It includes the CLI command in quotes for additional clarity without any filler. This is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of any parameter clarification and the absence of usage guidance leave notable gaps. The description names the action but leaves the device parameter's semantics and tool selection context unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'device' with no description, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain what 'device' refers to (e.g., hostname, IP address) and how it is used. It fails to add any meaning beyond the bare 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 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'hardware/software version info'. It also includes the CLI command 'show version' in quotes, which clarifies the exact operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inventory_hw or run_show_command.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_show_command or get_inventory_hw. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and the parenthetical 'show version', but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. Thus it earns a 3 for implied usage without explicit direction.
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 fully convey behavior. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output format, error behavior, permission requirements, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It includes the essential purpose and a helpful CLI reference, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining front-loaded.
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 read-only command, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the device parameter semantics or any prerequisites/caveats. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the overall guidance is thin for an agent needing to select and invoke this tool reliably among many siblings.
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 schema has zero description coverage for the device parameter, and the description also fails to explain what format the device should take (hostname, IP, etc.). The parameter name 'device' is somewhat self-explanatory in a network device context, but the lack of any semantic detail leaves room for ambiguity.
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 states the tool's function: 'Show the device's current time' with a specific verb and resource, and it includes the underlying CLI command ('show clock'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interfaces or get_version.
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 the tool is for retrieving the device clock, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like run_show_command or other get_* tools. There are no stated exclusions or preference conditions.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the purpose and command, implying a read-only operation but not explicitly disclosing behavior like error handling, permission requirements, or that no changes are made. The inclusion of the exact command adds a small amount of context, but significant behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and command. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and direct.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally viable. It clearly identifies the purpose and command, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. Since the output schema exists, return value documentation is not needed, but the absence of any guidance on when to use the tool or prerequisites keeps this from being fully complete.
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 has one required parameter 'device' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain the 'device' parameter or its possible values. The command implies that 'device' is the target device, but this is not explicit, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('EIGRP neighbors'), and includes the underlying command ('show ip eigrp neighbors'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ospf_neighbors or get_cdp_neighbors.
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 tool when you need EIGRP neighbor information. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, alternative tools, or prerequisites such as EIGRP being configured.
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. It only says 'show ip interface brief', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose safety, authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether it is a fast/summary view. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious.
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 action and includes the reference command. Zero wasted words; the description earns its place and is easy to scan.
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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use it and what the 'device' parameter means, leaving gaps that an agent would need to infer.
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 'device' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning or constraints, relying entirely on the schema's raw string type.
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 ('Show a brief interface status table') and gives the exact CLI command ('show ip interface brief'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_interfaces by emphasizing 'brief' status table.
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?
Usage context is implied (quick interface status from a device), but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_interfaces or run_show_command. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions.
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. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or that it requires BGP to be configured on the device. 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, efficient sentence that includes the key command. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It names the exact command and resource. Missing a bit of context about when the tool applies (e.g., devices with BGP enabled), but for a simple show command, it is largely sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'device' parameter at all. While the parameter name 'device' is self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's purpose from its name.
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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('BGP peer summary'), and includes the exact command ('show ip bgp summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ospf_neighbors or get_eigrp_neighbors.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_show_command or other neighbor-specific tools. The description implies a standard network operation but does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts.
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 full burden. It does disclose this is a read-only operation via the verb 'Show' and specifies the exact command, which adds transparency about the underlying behavior. However, it does not mention limitations, prerequisites, or any 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 that includes the command name in parentheses for clarity. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return format explanation is unnecessary. However, the description lacks contextual details such as when to use this tool versus LLDP or EIGRP, and it does not mention any prerequisites or environmental considerations. It is minimally viable 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'device' parameter. While the parameter name is relatively self-explanatory, the description provides no context on how to specify the device or any additional details beyond the schema field name.
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 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'directly connected Cisco neighbors', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_eigrp_neighbors and get_lldp_neighbors. The underlying command 'show cdp neighbors detail' further solidifies the tool's purpose.
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 this tool is for retrieving CDP neighbor information but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like LLDP or EIGRP. There is no mention of scenarios where CDP is preferred or when it should not 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?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the command 'show mac address-table' clarifies the exact action, but it does not disclose permissions, failure behavior, or any 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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary wording; correctly front-loaded with the action and includes the useful underlying command in parentheses.
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?
While this is a simple one-parameter tool and an output schema exists, the description omits mention of the device parameter and any prerequisites or context. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention the 'device' parameter, providing no additional meaning beyond its type and name. The description could clarify that the table is fetched for the specified device.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Show' and resource 'MAC address table', and includes the exact CLI command, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_arp_table and get_routing_table.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; it only states the command. The use case is implied by the tool name and sibling context, but no exclusions or alternative pointers are given.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool executes a show command, implying read-only behavior, but it doesn't describe the output format, potential authorization requirements, or what happens if no VLANs are configured. This is adequate for a simple read command but not rich.
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 that includes the exact CLI command in parentheses, providing high-value context with zero wasted words.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), and the description provides the core purpose and command. However, it lacks any guidance on usage context or parameter meaning, making it minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.
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 has one required parameter 'device' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'device' is or how to format it, leaving the agent to infer it means the target network device. This is a minimal but non-trivial gap, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 reads "Show configured VLANs ('show vlan brief')." This uses a specific verb (Show) and a specific resource (configured VLANs), and the parenthetical command identifies the exact underlying operation, making it distinct from sibling queries like get_interfaces or get_trunks.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_show_command or other get_* tools. The purpose is clear, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving usage to inference.
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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the read-only nature, that the server rejects non-show commands, and provides a detailed privilege escalation note: 'show running-config' on IOS/IOS-XE uses privilege-15, while all other commands and all NX-OS commands use the read-only account. This is valuable beyond the bare 'show' in the name and gives the agent important security and permission context.
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 and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds essential behavioral detail about command restrictions and privilege escalation. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition or filler, making it an exemplary concise description.
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 covers the tool's security model and command constraints effectively, and because an output schema exists, return value details are not required. However, it does not address how this generic tool relates to the 24 sibling get_* commands, which are likely preferred for their specific purposes. Without guidance on when the generic fallback should be invoked instead of a sibling, the description is not fully complete for an agent's decision-making process.
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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage) for 'device' and 'command', so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'command' must be a show command but does not explain how to specify the device (e.g., by ID, hostname) or the exact command format (e.g., whether to include the leading 'show' keyword). This leaves the agent with incomplete information for constructing valid input.
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 states the tool's action: 'Run an arbitrary read-only 'show' command on a device.' This identifies a specific verb (run) and resource (a show command on a device), and the word 'arbitrary' distinguishes it from the many specific get_* sibling tools that target particular commands. It also clarifies the read-only scope, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 restrictions on what commands are allowed ('Only 'show' commands are permitted') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific get_* siblings. It does not say, for example, 'Use this for show commands not covered by a specific getter' or mention any exclusions. The usage context is implied but not actionable for an agent deciding between alternatives.
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 full disclosure burden. It uses 'show' to indicate a non-destructive read operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, device prerequisites, or limitations of the command, leaving some behavioral traits unexplained.
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 short, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and key details without any redundant or unnecessary text.
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 show command with one parameter and an output schema (which presumably defines the return structure), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and content. It lacks parameter explanation but that is the sole meaningful gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 sole required parameter 'device' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. This fails to compensate for the missing schema detail, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'device' (e.g., hostname, IP).
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 states it shows environmental info with specific components (power, fans, temperature). The inclusion of the CLI command 'show environment' and the specific verb 'show' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_interfaces or get_version.
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 the tool is for checking device environmental status but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage guidance 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 full burden. The verb 'Show' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, specify required privileges, or disclose other behavioral traits. It adds minimal context beyond the command name.
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 sentence that includes the underlying command in parentheses for extra clarity. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and behavioral details, which would make it more self-sufficient for an agent.
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 has only 'device' without any description, and the tool description does not elaborate on this parameter. It does not explain the expected format (e.g., hostname, IP) or connection to list_devices, leaving the agent to infer. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 'Show chassis/module/serial inventory' with the exact command ('show inventory'), clearly identifying a read operation for hardware inventory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version or get_environment.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_show_command, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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 full burden. It discloses the potential large output, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention privileges, or note any other constraints beyond what is implied by 'show'.
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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and a brief caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and adds a useful size warning. It lacks explicit device format instructions, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and available schema/output schema.
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 schema has one required 'device' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'the device's log buffer' but does not clarify how to specify the device (e.g., hostname, IP, list format) or add any meaning beyond the parameter name itself.
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 states it shows the device's log buffer, using the specific underlying command 'show logging'. This is a distinct verb+resource from sibling tools like get_running_config or get_version.
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 for viewing logs and warns that output can be large, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_show_command or other getters. No exclusion or alternative instructions are given.
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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose that the underlying command varies by platform, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is safe/read-only, potential side effects, or the format of the returned data. The read-only nature is implied by the 'get' prefix but not explicitly stated.
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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential platform-specific command mappings. 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and platform-specific behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool and does not clarify the 'device' parameter. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete but falls short in these small respects.
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 has one parameter 'device' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Show memory utilization.' It also provides specific commands per platform (IOS/IOS-XE and NX-OS), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cpu or get_environment. The verb 'Show' and resource 'memory utilization' are specific and unambiguous.
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 provides useful platform-specific command context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cpu or get_environment. Usage is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly guided.
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 present, so the description must convey behavior; it does by stating 'Show' and the exact command, which implies read-only network inspection. However, it does not disclose any requirements like privileged exec mode or device reachability, relying on the existing output schema for return details.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, and the parenthetical command reference adds useful precision without waste.
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 one-parameter show tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and command equivalency. It lacks usage guidance and parameter detail, but the low complexity keeps it minimally viable.
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 has only a required 'device' string with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter or its expected format. The meaning of 'device' is largely inferable from the schema title, but the description adds no compensation for the missing schema 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Show' and resource 'trunk interfaces and allowed VLANs', and includes the underlying command 'show interfaces trunk'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interfaces or get_vlans by focusing specifically on trunk ports.
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 use when trunk interface details and allowed VLANs are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_interfaces or get_vlans, nor any exclusions. Sibling names alone do not clarify selection.
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 full burden. It discloses the underlying command ('show lldp neighbors detail'), which is useful for understanding the operation's nature. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or any device-side impact—though none are expected for a read-only show command. The output schema covers return structure, so that gap is mitigated.
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 that states the action, target, and a key differentiator without redundancy. It is both concise and structurally efficient.
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?
Given a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It provides the essential command and differentiator, but lacks explicit usage guidance (e.g., 'use when LLDP is configured') and does not explain the device parameter. These gaps make it minimally viable rather than fully 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 schema has zero description coverage for the single 'device' parameter, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage gap.
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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('LLDP neighbors'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including non-Cisco devices') that separates it from sibling tools like CDP and EIGRP neighbor tools. It references the exact command ('show lldp neighbors detail'), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 'including non-Cisco devices' implies this tool is preferred over CDP when dealing with multi-vendor environments, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools by name, leaving some room for interpretation.
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 full burden and it clearly states the exact command executed ('show ip route'), making the tool's behavior transparent for a read-only show operation. It does not detail potential failure modes or prerequisites, but the command itself implies a non-destructive, information-retrieval 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?
The description is a single sentence, immediately states the purpose, and includes the exact command. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple show command with a single required parameter and an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the exact operation performed. The presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, and the command reference provides complete operational context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain the 'device' parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the tool to rely entirely on the parameter's implicit role.
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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('IPv4 routing table') with the exact Cisco command ('show ip route'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_arp_table or get_ospf_neighbors.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_show_command or other routing-related tools. There are no contextual cues or exclusions 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 burden. It discloses that the tool executes the specific command 'show spanning-tree', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety characteristics or 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 description is a single, concise sentence that provides the purpose and the underlying command, with no superfluous words.
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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks explicit guidance on usage context and does not explain the device parameter, leaving some gaps.
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?
With only one parameter (device) and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain what 'device' refers to. The agent must infer its meaning from the tool's context.
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 states the verb 'Show' and the specific resource 'spanning-tree state per VLAN', and even quotes the exact command 'show spanning-tree'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that display other network information.
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 context is clear: this tool is for viewing spanning-tree state per VLAN. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, no sibling tool covers spanning-tree, making the intended usage obvious.
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?
Even without annotations, the description names the exact command ('show ip ospf neighbor'), which transparently indicates that the tool performs a read-only network device operation. It does not mention error conditions or access requirements, but the command itself conveys the core 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and exact command without any wasted words. It earns its place by adding the specific CLI command, which is useful for understanding behavior.
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's low complexity, one required parameter, and an available output schema, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking it. Minor gaps remain around usage guidance and parameter specifics, but the core context is sufficiently covered.
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 provides no description for the required 'device' parameter, and the tool description does not compensate. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no details about accepted formats, device addressing, or required access are given, leaving the agent with only the schema's type information.
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 states the action ('Show') and the target resource ('OSPF neighbors'), citing the exact CLI command 'show ip ospf neighbor'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_eigrp_neighbors, get_cdp_neighbors, and get_lldp_neighbors.
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 you need OSPF neighbor information) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tool names make some alternatives obvious, but no direct comparison is offered.
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 burden of disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the privilege level required varies by OS, signaling potential permission failures. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not detail side effects, but 'show' implies read-only.
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, front-loaded with the core action and the exact command. The second sentence efficiently adds platform nuance. No wasted words.
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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and an important permission caveat. However, it omits parameter guidance and doesn't differentiate from the sibling run_show_command, leaving small gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic getter tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'device' parameter. The schema's title 'Device' is minimal, but the description adds no information about accepted formats, allowed values, or how to specify the target. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Show the running configuration' and even names the exact command 'show running-config'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version or get_interfaces.
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?
It provides implied usage ('To get the running config, use this'), and adds platform-specific account requirements (privilege-15 on IOS/XE vs read-only on NX-OS). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the generic run_show_command or other alternatives, so exclusions are missing.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does by revealing the exact underlying commands per platform ('show processes cpu history' / 'show system resources'), indicating the read-only nature and platform-dependent behavior. It doesn't cover output format or nuances, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.
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, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose; the second adds useful platform-specific commands. Every token 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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers platform variability (IOS/IOS-XE vs NX-OS) and the action. It doesn't waste space on redundant return-value details since the output schema exists.
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 0%, and the description doesn't mention the 'device' parameter. Nevertheless, the parameter is self-explanatory as the target device for the query, and its role is implied by the tool name and command examples. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's title/type.
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 'Show CPU utilization' as a specific verb+resource statement, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_memory or get_environment. It additionally provides platform-specific commands, reinforcing the tool's exact purpose.
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 use for checking CPU utilization (via name and 'Show CPU utilization') and provides platform-specific command context for IOS/IOS-XE vs NX-OS. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like get_memory or get_environment.
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. It discloses the operation is a 'show' (implying read-only) and adds a scope limitation (PoE switches). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or describe any other behavioral traits beyond what the name and command already imply.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes only necessary context (the CLI command and the PoE constraint). 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?
Given a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, the underlying command, and the applicable device type. The only gap is the absence of explicit alternative references, but that is partially addressed in the usage guidelines.
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 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'device' parameter beyond its name. The parameter is self-explanatory in the context of network tools, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action ('Show') and the resource ('PoE inline power status'), and includes the underlying CLI command for additional clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_environment or get_interfaces that might cover other power aspects.
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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'Only meaningful on PoE switches.' This is useful exclusionary guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of 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 full responsibility for conveying behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, whether authentication is required, or if it reads from a live network vs. a cached inventory. It is adequate but not enriched beyond the basic action.
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 no redundant words. Every word adds value: it names the action, the object, and the included fields. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the scope (inventory switches), the data returned (platform and notes), and the action. It does not explicitly state that the list is unfiltered, but that is reasonably implied by 'available in the inventory'.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema (which is empty) already conveys.
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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('switches available in the inventory'), with additional detail about what is shown ('platform and notes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific device data (e.g., get_interfaces, get_version), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 context: it is the tool for enumerating switches in the inventory. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_inventory_hw, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is inferred from the wording rather than stated outright.
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-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Chiefff-Kiefff/cisco-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Chiefff-Kiefff/cisco-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cisco-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Chiefff-Kiefff/cisco-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Chiefff-Kiefff/cisco-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/Chiefff-Kiefff/cisco-mcp'

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