Retrieve a single VLAN interface on a device by supplying device and VLAN IDs, enabling visibility into network settings for backup and recovery operations.
Get a single VLAN interface on a device by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vlan_id | Yes | VLAN ID. | |
| device_id | Yes | Device ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burdenebb; 'Get' communicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention error behavior, authorization needs, or the shape of the returned interface, but for a simple getter the core behavioral trait is disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse at a glance.
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?
For a two-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic invocation but omits return format and explicit usage guidance. Since there is no output schema to carry the response contract, some completeness gap remains.
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 the parameters are already individually documented. The description adds only that the operation targets a single VLAN interface by ID, providing minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's 'VLAN ID' and 'Device ID' descriptions.
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 clearly names the operation ('Get'), the resource ('single VLAN interface'), and the required scoping context ('on a device by ID'). This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like slide_list_device_vlans and makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
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 phrase 'single ... on a device by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving one specific VLAN interface by known identifiers, as opposed to listing all VLANs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.