GNS3 Network Simulator MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add a shape') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a mutation (likely yes), authentication requirements (implied by username/password params but not stated), error handling, or what the output contains. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 brief but poorly structured. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the parameter documentation is incomplete and formatted as a simple list without grouping or prioritization. It's concise but not effectively organized, with wasted space on partial param details.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%), the description is highly incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, ignores most parameters, and doesn't leverage the output schema (which exists but isn't referenced). For a mutation tool in a network topology context, this leaves the agent under-informed about usage and effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only documents 3 parameters (shape_type, color, fill_color) out of 11, ignoring key ones like project_id, x, y, width, height, and server_url. The parameter explanations are minimal (e.g., 'Border color (hex format)'), leaving most semantics undefined. This fails to address the low coverage gap.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Add a shape (rectangle or ellipse) to the topology.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resource ('shape'), and types ('rectangle or ellipse'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gns3_add_text_annotation or gns3_add_node, which also add visual elements to the topology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project), comparison to other shape-related tools (none exist in siblings), or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.