Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Network Info

get_network_info

Retrieves network interfaces with IP addresses, state, speed, IO counters, default route, and DNS servers to inspect and document host network configuration.

Instructions

Network interfaces with IPs, state, speed, IO counters, default route and DNS servers.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_network_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does signal a read-only operation by describing returned data rather than actions. However it says nothing about permissions, platform assumptions (Linux-specific interfaces?), or whether the call is cheap or slow — gaps that matter for a system-probing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; the most important terms (network interfaces, IPs) come first. It loses a point only for being a fragment rather than a complete, verb-led statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still previews the key fields an agent will get. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, with only platform/permission caveats missing.

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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline 4 applies. The description wisely spends its words on returned content instead.

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 is a noun phrase naming the resource (network interfaces) and enumerating its contents: IPs, state, speed, IO counters, default route, DNS servers. That is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from get_hardware_info or get_disk_usage, though it omits an explicit verb and never names a sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The tool has zero parameters so misuse risk is low, but the description offers nothing about when network info is the right call versus the many other read-only info tools.

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