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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states 'Update' implies mutation but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide needed behavioral transparency.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be more complete. The formatting with 'Args:' section helps readability.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains some parameters and the basic purpose, but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and coverage of all parameters. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but significant gaps remain.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for 4 parameters (name, x, y, properties) that have 0% schema description coverage, explaining what they control. However, it omits the other 5 parameters (project_id, node_id, server_url, username, password) which are critical for operation. Given the low schema coverage (0%), the description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('node settings and properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_get_node' (read) and 'gns3_add_node' (create), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'gns3_duplicate_node' or 'gns3_reload_node'.

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