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 mentions that suspension 'pauses execution' and 'saves state', which hints at a non-destructive pause, but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions required, whether the node must be running first, error conditions, or what the saved state entails. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action and adds clarifying detail in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a moderate parameter count, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter meanings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 it adds no parameter information beyond what the schema names imply. The description doesn't explain what 'project_id' or 'node_id' refer to, or the purpose of authentication fields. However, with 5 parameters and 2 required, the baseline is 3 as the schema provides structure without descriptions.

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 ('suspend a node') and specifies what suspension entails ('pause execution, save state'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_stop_node' or 'gns3_reload_node', which prevents a perfect score.

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 such as 'gns3_stop_node' or 'gns3_reload_node'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.

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