Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netmiko-mcp-linksys

netmiko-mcp-linksys

by WackEarl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

port_set_admin_state

Enable or disable a switch port with no shutdown or shutdown commands; does not save the configuration.

Instructions

Enable or disable a switch port (no shutdown / shutdown). Does not save.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "port": "<port>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "port_set_admin_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYes
enabledYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the critical trait that the change is not persisted, but says nothing about permissions required, traffic impact when disabling a port, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action stated first and the persistence caveat second; nothing is wasted. It could be marginally improved by stating the port format, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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, and the tool's scope is genuinely small. The main remaining gap is the undocumented port identifier format, which matters because it is a required parameter with zero schema coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters rely on the description, which only indirectly clarifies 'enabled' via the shutdown/no-shutdown mapping. The 'port' parameter's expected naming or numbering format is never specified, leaving a real ambiguity for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (switch port), and the parenthetical 'no shutdown / shutdown' anchors it to concrete CLI semantics. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the 'Does not save' clause implicitly separates it from save_config.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'Does not save' note hints that save_config must follow to persist the change, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g. poe_set for power).

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