Removes the cable plugged into a specified port on a device in Cisco Packet Tracer; supply the device and port names as shown by list_ports.
Remove the cable plugged into a port.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Port name, exactly as `list_ports` shows it. | |
| device | Yes | Device name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | ||
| device | Yes | ||
| was_connected_to | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds a small amount of context by specifying that a cable is removed from a port, but it does not disclose reversibility, side effects on the port or device state, or authorization needs. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), and annotations that already cover the mutation safety profile, the description is largely complete. A minor gap is that it does not mention the inverse relationship with connect or what happens to the port after disconnection, but these are not essential for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the device and port parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions 'cable plugged into a port', which loosely maps to the port parameter, but adds no syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (remove) and resource (cable plugged into a port). It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like connect (opposite action) and remove_device (removes a device rather than a cable). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect or remove_device. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions stated; usage must be inferred entirely from 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.