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 returns 'complete project configuration and statistics,' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive or detail authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with server_url, username, and password parameters, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value. There's no wasted language, but it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral details. It efficiently conveys core information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description details. However, it lacks context on authentication, server interaction, and sibling differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent 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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters beyond implying 'project_id' is needed for a specific project. It doesn't explain the purpose of server_url, username, or password, leaving their semantics undocumented. With 4 parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 detailed information about a specific project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gns3_list_projects' by focusing on a single project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gns3_get_node' or 'gns3_get_topology' which also retrieve information, so it's not fully specific about what makes this tool unique.

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 like needing an existing project ID, nor does it compare it to siblings like 'gns3_list_projects' for listing all projects or 'gns3_get_node' for node details. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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