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. It states the action ('Start all nodes') but doesn't describe what 'start' entails (e.g., powering on virtual devices), potential side effects, authentication needs (implied by username/password params but not explained), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and usage context. For a mutation tool that likely affects system state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'project' but doesn't clarify what 'project_id' represents or how to obtain it. It doesn't address 'server_url', 'username', or 'password' at all, leaving all 4 parameters with minimal semantic context beyond their names in 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 action ('Start all nodes') and resource ('in a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gns3_start_node' (singular) and 'gns3_stop_all_nodes' (opposite action), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the text.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be open), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'gns3_start_node' for individual nodes or 'gns3_stop_all_nodes' for stopping.

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