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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving 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 extremely concise with two brief sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the core action, and the second clarifies the update behavior. This is efficient and well-structured for its limited content.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description lacks essential context about parameters, usage scenarios, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 for 8 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'specified parameters' without explaining what parameters exist or their meanings (e.g., project_id, name, auto_close). This fails to provide meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema already shows through property names.

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 states the verb 'update' and resource 'project settings', which is clear but minimal. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_create_project' or 'gns3_delete_project' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'gns3_update_node'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'settings' entails.

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 exist), when not to use it (e.g., for creation vs. update), or refer to sibling tools like 'gns3_get_project' for checking current settings. The partial guidance about 'only specified parameters will be updated' hints at usage but is insufficient for comprehensive decision-making.

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