GNS3 Network Simulator MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The WARNING about current project state loss is a critical behavioral trait that informs the destructive nature of the operation, adding significant value beyond basic function. It doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs or response format, but the warning is a key safety disclosure.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing a critical warning. Every word earns its place, and the warning is front-loaded for immediate visibility, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 5 parameters) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the destructive behavior via the warning but lacks details on parameters, authentication, or output (though an output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values). For a tool with significant risk, more context would be beneficial.

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 for all 5 parameters. It mentions 'project' and 'snapshot' implicitly through the action, but doesn't explain what 'project_id' or 'snapshot_id' are, nor does it cover 'server_url', 'username', or 'password'. This leaves most parameter meanings unclear, failing to adequately supplement the 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 verb 'Restore' and the resource 'project from a snapshot', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_create_snapshot' or 'gns3_list_snapshots' beyond the restore action, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 WARNING provides implicit guidance that this tool should be used cautiously due to data loss, suggesting it's for reverting to a saved state. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'gns3_duplicate_project'), or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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