Read real ipconfig output from a specified PC in Packet Tracer to verify IP configuration and troubleshoot network settings.
Read real PC ipconfig output. / 读取PC实际ipconfig输出。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | PC name. / PC名称。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the nuance that output is 'real' device data rather than simulated, but says nothing about failure modes when the named device is absent or offline.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and nothing wasted. The bilingual duplication is a presentation convention rather than padding, so length remains appropriate.
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?
A one-parameter read tool with full annotations needs little more, and 'ipconfig output' implies the return content. Still missing is any note on device-name validity or what happens on an unknown/offline device, which an agent would want before calling.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'device' is documented as 'PC name'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as requiring the name to match an existing topology device; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 concrete verb and resource: read the actual ipconfig output of a PC. That distinguishes it from generic siblings like pt_show or pt_ping, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for adjacent config-reading tasks.
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 on when to prefer this over pt_show or other inspection tools, no prerequisites (e.g., device must exist / be powered on), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'ipconfig'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.