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 stopping is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other nodes, or has side effects like data loss. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than optimal clarity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter semantics, and usage guidance, 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 adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' or 'node_id' represent, or the purpose of authentication parameters. With 5 parameters undocumented, 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 'Stop a specific node' clearly states the action (stop) and target (node), but it's vague about what 'stop' means operationally and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'gns3_suspend_node' or 'gns3_stop_all_nodes'. It's better than a 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 like 'gns3_suspend_node' or 'gns3_stop_all_nodes'. The description implies usage for stopping a node but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions.

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