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 effectively communicates the destructive nature ('permanently delete'), irreversible consequences ('cannot be undone'), and scope of impact ('all its files'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that might be relevant for this 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core action and scope, while the second provides critical warning information. No wasted words, and the warning is appropriately front-loaded for emphasis.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers the irreversible nature and scope of deletion. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, the complete lack of parameter information (0% schema coverage with no compensation in description) and missing behavioral details like authentication requirements create 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention project_id (the required parameter), server_url, username, or password. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 specific action ('permanently delete'), the resource ('a project'), and the scope ('and all its files'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gns3_close_project (which likely closes without deletion) and gns3_delete_snapshot (which deletes snapshots, not entire projects).

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for permanent deletion) through the 'WARNING' statement, which implies it should only be used when irreversible deletion is intended. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like gns3_close_project for temporary closure.

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