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. While it mentions what information is shown, it doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), authentication requirements (though parameters suggest optional credentials), potential rate limits, or how the data is formatted/returned. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 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 extremely concise and well-structured—two short sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows up with specific details about what's shown.

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) and no annotations, the description provides basic but incomplete context. For a listing tool with 4 parameters (including authentication-related ones), the description should ideally mention the required project context and optional authentication, but it doesn't. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description leaves too many usage questions unanswered.

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 doesn't mention any parameters at all—it doesn't explain what 'project_id' refers to, why 'server_url' has a default, or when 'username' and 'password' are needed. With 4 parameters (1 required) completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is a significant gap in parameter semantics.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all links (connections) in a project'), and specifies what information is shown ('link endpoints, ports, and status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_get_topology' or 'gns3_list_nodes', which might also provide link information in different contexts.

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. With siblings like 'gns3_get_topology' (which might include link data) and 'gns3_list_nodes' (which could relate to link endpoints), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from other listing or retrieval tools in the GNS3 ecosystem.

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