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. 'Stop all nodes' implies a destructive/mutative operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens to running processes, if it's reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. It only states the basic action without context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema (which might help), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context about authentication needs, project state requirements, behavioral effects, and parameter meanings, making it insufficient for safe and 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 doesn't mention any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' refers to, that 'server_url' defaults to localhost, or that 'username'/'password' are optional for authentication. With 4 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.

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 ('Stop all nodes') and the target resource ('in a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_stop_node' (which stops individual nodes) or 'gns3_suspend_node' (which might have different behavior).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot stop suspended nodes), or when to prefer this over stopping nodes individually with 'gns3_stop_node'.

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