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. It mentions the tool's purpose and constraints (Dynamips/IOS only), but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs (implied by username/password params), rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. It adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important constraints. The Args section is brief but could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more cohesive.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key constraint, but lacks details on parameter meanings beyond 'auto_compute', behavioral context, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. It's adequate but has clear 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%, so the description must compensate. It only documents one parameter ('auto_compute') in the Args section, leaving the other 5 parameters (project_id, node_id, server_url, username, password) unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient given the low schema coverage, resulting in a score of 2.

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: 'Get idle-pc values for Dynamips routers to reduce CPU usage.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('idle-pc values'), and target ('Dynamips routers'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on CPU optimization for a specific router type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Only works with Dynamips/IOS routers.' This gives explicit guidance on applicability, helping the agent avoid misuse on non-Dynamips routers. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions beyond this, so it's not a full 5.

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