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 tool lists compute servers and shows specific fields (ID, name, protocol, host, port, status), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential authentication requirements (implied by username/password parameters but not explained), rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with authentication parameters.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary verbiage or 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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (including authentication-related ones) and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral expectations. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves important gaps around parameters and usage context.

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 documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain the three input parameters (server_url, username, password) that appear in the schema. This leaves the agent guessing about authentication requirements and server configuration, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.

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 action ('List all available compute servers') and specifies the resource type ('compute servers'), including examples of what types are included ('local, VMs, remote'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_list_nodes' or 'gns3_list_projects' by focusing specifically on compute servers, but doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 like 'gns3_get_server_info' or other list tools. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison with sibling tools that might provide overlapping or complementary functionality.

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