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 mentions the tool's purpose but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a mutation (likely yes, given 'Add'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or how it interacts with the GNS3 server. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 high complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool, parameter explanations, and integration details with the GNS3 ecosystem, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand full usage.

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 for 8 parameters. It only implies 'text' and 'topology' (via 'project_id'), but doesn't explain parameters like x, y, rotation, server_url, username, or password. The description adds little meaning beyond what the schema names suggest, failing to address the 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 action ('Add text annotation') and target ('to the topology'), with a specific purpose ('documenting networks and adding labels'). It distinguishes from siblings like gns3_add_shape by specifying text annotations, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 minimal guidance with 'Useful for documenting networks and adding labels,' which gives some context but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings like gns3_add_shape. No exclusions or detailed usage scenarios are provided.

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