Run a single IOS show command on a specified router or switch and return its actual output for verifying network configuration and status.
Run one IOS show command and return its real output. / 返回show命令实际输出。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | Router or switch name. / 设备名。 | |
| command | Yes | Single show command, e.g. show vlan brief. / 单条show命令。 |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the returned output is the device's 'real output,' which usefully signals it is live data rather than a canned response, but it says nothing about failure modes (unreachable device, unsupported command) or output format.
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?
One short sentence (plus a bilingual mirror) with zero waste, front-loaded on the action and the result. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 carries some burden of explaining returns, and it does so only as 'real output' without stating the format. For a two-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, however, it is nearly complete; the small gap is return-format detail rather than anything blocking correct invocation.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples ('show vlan brief'). The description's 'single show command' merely restates the schema constraint and adds no format or syntax guidance beyond it; baseline 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 and resource: run one IOS show command and return its output. This is clearly a read-only inspection tool, distinct in spirit from pt_configure_ios, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with the config-mutation tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'one IOS show command' — the agent must infer that this is for read-only inspection and that only show commands are valid. No when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., pt_configure_ios for changes) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.