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 states the tool creates a project but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any side effects like file system changes. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a creation operation in a network simulation environment.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each parameter explanation is brief and to the point. The only minor inefficiency is the omission of the three authentication-related parameters, but otherwise it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description does an adequate job. It explains the core parameters well but misses authentication details. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden on the description. However, the lack of behavioral context for a creation operation is a notable gap.

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?

The description provides a helpful parameter list with brief explanations for 5 parameters (name, auto_close, auto_open, auto_start, path), which adds significant value beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it omits 3 other parameters from the schema (server_url, username, password), leaving authentication and connection details undocumented. The provided explanations are clear but incomplete.

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 ('Create a new GNS3 project') with the specific resource ('GNS3 project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gns3_duplicate_project' or 'gns3_update_project' by focusing on creation rather than modification or duplication. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

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_duplicate_project' or 'gns3_update_project'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as server connectivity or authentication requirements, nor any context about when creation is appropriate versus other project operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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