GNS3 Network Simulator MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if starting requires authentication (implied by username/password params), potential side effects (e.g., network activation), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal, leaving critical behavior opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 (mutation operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, operational behavior, error handling, and parameter meanings. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough for safe or effective use.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' or 'node_id' refer to, why 'server_url' defaults to localhost, or when 'username'/'password' are needed. With 5 parameters (2 required), this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 'Start a specific node' clearly states the action (start) and resource (node), but it's vague about what 'start' means operationally (e.g., power on, initialize) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'gns3_start_all_nodes' (bulk vs. specific) or 'gns3_reload_node' (restart vs. initial start). It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., node must be stopped), contrast with 'gns3_start_all_nodes' for bulk operations, or specify contexts like post-configuration. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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