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 but doesn't explain what stopping a capture entails—e.g., whether it saves data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like freeing resources. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse and understand 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's complexity (involving network captures and multiple parameters) and the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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, but it adds no information beyond the action. Parameters like 'project_id', 'link_id', and authentication fields ('username', 'password') are undocumented, leaving their purposes unclear to the agent.

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 packet capture') and the target ('on a link'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gns3_start_capture' by indicating the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction 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, such as when a capture is already running or what happens if invoked incorrectly. It lacks context about prerequisites or related tools like 'gns3_start_capture' for initiating captures.

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