Skip to main content
Glama
J-MaFf

s2-netbox-mcp

by J-MaFf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_access_levels

Retrieve configured access levels from a NetBox system, enabling review of physical access-control permissions and supporting paginated listing.

Instructions

Lists access levels configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevels).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
WANTKEYNoOptional. Per NBAPI GetAccessLevels.
PARTITIONKEYNoOptional. Per NBAPI GetAccessLevels — only "0" is documented as allowed.
STARTFROMKEYNoOptional. Pagination cursor (key) to continue listing from a previous call.
STARTFROMNAMENoOptional. Pagination cursor (name) to continue listing from a previous call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / PARTITIONKEY
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Per NBAPI GetAccessLevels — only \"0\" is documented as allowed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' access levels, implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe pagination behavior (despite STARTFROMKEY/STARTFROMNAME parameters), response format, or any side effects or requirements. An agent cannot infer how the pagination cursors work or what the output looks like.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful behavioral and usage context. For conciseness alone it earns a 4.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns and how the pagination parameters work. It merely says 'lists access levels' without detailing the return structure or how to use STARTFROMKEY/STARTFROMNAME to iterate through pages. For a listing tool with multiple optional parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly beyond trivial cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter carrying a description (e.g., 'Pagination cursor (key) to continue listing from a previous call'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource 'access levels configured on the NetBox system', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_access_level (singular) or get_access_level_name. The mention of wrapping NBAPI GetAccessLevels further anchors its function.

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 purpose implies this tool is for enumerating access levels, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_access_level for a single record or get_access_level_names for just names. No exclusions or direct comparisons are provided.

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