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 full burden. It mentions the return content ('server version, supported features, and system information') but lacks behavioral details: no indication of authentication needs (though parameters suggest optional credentials), rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, scoring 2.

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: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return values. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured, scoring 5.

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 low complexity (a simple read operation), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and the output schema likely covers return values. However, it lacks details on authentication behavior and parameter usage, keeping it from a 5. Overall, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what the schema shows (server_url, username, password). The schema itself documents defaults and types, but the description doesn't explain parameter purposes, such as when to provide credentials or server URL variations. With 3 parameters and 0% coverage, baseline is low, but the description fails to add meaningful semantics, resulting in a minimal score of 3.

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 GNS3 server version and information' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('GNS3 server version and information'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_get_node' or 'gns3_get_project' by focusing on server-level metadata rather than project or node details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling 'get' tools, keeping it at 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparison to other tools like 'gns3_list_computes' or 'gns3_get_topology' for server-related queries. It simply states what it does without context, scoring 2 for lack of usage direction.

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