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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanently' destructive, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., if snapshot doesn't exist), side effects, or what the output schema returns. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Delete a snapshot permanently' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 a destructive tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and sufficient behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, error handling), 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—it doesn't explain what 'project_id', 'snapshot_id', 'server_url', 'username', or 'password' are for, their formats, or relationships. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Delete a snapshot permanently' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (snapshot), with 'permanently' adding specificity about the nature of the deletion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gns3_restore_snapshot' and 'gns3_create_snapshot' by focusing on removal rather than creation or restoration.

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 snapshot), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting projects), or comparisons to related tools like 'gns3_delete_project' or 'gns3_restore_snapshot'.

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