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 describes a read-only listing operation ('List all nodes'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication needs (e.g., username/password parameters), rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with authentication parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by details on returned fields. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse. No wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (listing operation with authentication parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output fields but lacks guidance on usage, parameter details, and behavioral aspects like authentication. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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 mentions 'in a project', which hints at the 'project_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the other three parameters (server_url, username, password) or their purposes. With 4 parameters total and only one implicitly addressed, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 nodes') and resource ('in a project'), specifying what information is returned ('Shows node name, type, status, console port, and position'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_get_node' (singular) and 'gns3_get_topology' (broader scope), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This makes the purpose specific and actionable, though not maximally differentiated.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'in a project', suggesting it's for retrieving device lists within a specific project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'gns3_get_topology' or 'gns3_list_projects', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative or conditional advice.

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