Skip to main content
Glama
Choaterboater

casper-network-mcp

by Choaterboater
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

invoke_tool

Executes any tool discovered via find_tool, including network-changing operations. Use it to run vendor API actions across Central, Mist, and ClearPass, with changes classified by the tool's kind.

Instructions

Run any tool from find_tool, including ones that change the network.

    The tool's own kind (from find_tool) says what it changes.
    login: a named Central login from access_check (default: the main one).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
loginNo
argumentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / login
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Login"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real context beyond them by explaining that mutation scope is delegated to the discovered tool's 'kind' and that logins come from access_check — but it says nothing about error behavior, whether results are passed through, or what happens when the invoked tool is destructive.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core statement is front-loaded and the whole thing is short, but the formatting is scrappy (stray indentation, a dangling 'login:' fragment) and the phrase 'the tool's own kind (from find_tool) says what it changes' is indirect enough to require rereading.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a generic dispatcher with three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the argument-object contract, result shape, or failure modes. The login note is the only substantive addition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains only 'login' (a named Central login from access_check, defaulting to the main one); 'name' is merely implied to be the find_tool tool name, and 'arguments' — the free-form pass-through object — is not described at all, which is the largest gap for a dispatcher.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource — run any tool discovered via find_tool — and notes it covers tools 'that change the network,' which implicitly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling invoke_read_tool. It is clear what the tool does, though the contrast with invoke_read_tool is only implied rather than stated.

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 establishes the prerequisite workflow (discover with find_tool, resolve credentials with access_check), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never states when an agent should pick invoke_tool over the sibling invoke_read_tool for non-mutating calls, leaving the most important selection decision to inference.

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