GNS3 Network Simulator MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'All nodes will be stopped,' which implies a destructive effect, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or if there are side effects like saving changes. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly state the action and a key behavioral consequence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral nuances, though the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 undocumented parameters. It adds no information about the four parameters (project_id, server_url, username, password), such as their purposes, formats, or authentication requirements, leaving them entirely unexplained.

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 ('Close an open project') and specifies the resource ('project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gns3_delete_project' or 'gns3_open_project'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gns3_stop_all_nodes' in terms of scope, as both involve stopping nodes.

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 like 'gns3_delete_project' (which removes the project) or 'gns3_stop_all_nodes' (which stops nodes without closing the project). It also lacks prerequisites, such as requiring the project to be open first.

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