Connect two free ports on Packet Tracer devices with a straight or crossover cable to establish a network link.
Connect two available ports using a straight/crossover cable. / 连接两个空闲端口。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cable | No | Cable type; default straight. / 线缆类型，默认直通。 | |
| port_a | Yes | First exact port name. / 端口一。 | |
| port_b | Yes | Second exact port name. / 端口二。 | |
| device_a | Yes | First device. / 设备一。 | |
| device_b | Yes | Second device. / 设备二。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the 'available ports' precondition, which is real value, but it does not say whether an existing link is replaced, what error occurs if a port is busy, or whether the link is persisted to the saved topology.
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?
A single compact sentence (duplicated bilingually) with the action and the cable dimension front-loaded. No filler; the only cost is the redundant bilingual repetition which consumes space without adding information for an English-reading agent.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should carry the return/error story, and it does not: it says nothing about what is returned on success or what happens on a busy/invalid port. For a five-parameter mutation tool this leaves a meaningful gap, though the core intent is conveyed.
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 100%, so all five parameters including the cable enum with its 'default straight' note are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of straight/crossover adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (connect) and resource (two ports on two devices) plus the cable-type dimension, so the action is unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like pt_topology_png or pt_ping, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other configuration tools.
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?
'Two available ports' implies a precondition (both ports must be free), which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (device existence, port naming), no mention of what to do if a port is already connected, and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.