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 links connected to this node will also be deleted,' which adds useful context about side effects. However, it doesn't cover other critical behaviors like whether deletion is reversible, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence adds value by stating the core action and a key side effect, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 as a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error scenarios, output format (though an output schema exists), and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate 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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'project_id' or 'node_id,' failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves parameters largely 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a node from the project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_delete_link' or 'gns3_delete_project', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.

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_link' or 'gns3_delete_project', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for deletion. It lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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