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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a snapshot/backup, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing snapshots with the same name, requires authentication, has side effects on project availability, or provides success/failure responses. 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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what it captures. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, usage context, and output information (though an output schema exists, which mitigates this slightly). For a backup/creation tool in a system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' or 'snapshot_name' represent, or the purpose of 'server_url', 'username', and 'password', leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('snapshot (backup) of a project'), and explains what it captures ('current state of all nodes and configuration'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_restore_snapshot' or 'gns3_list_snapshots', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'gns3_restore_snapshot' or 'gns3_delete_snapshot', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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