mtr_monitorMonitors the network path to a target host using MTR probes, returning hop-by-hop latency and packet loss to diagnose connectivity issues.
Monitor network path using mtr
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of probes | |
| target | Yes | Target host | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how long monitoring lasts, what output to expect, or any permission/rate considerations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is extremely terse for a tool with no annotations and multiple diagnostic siblings. It is efficient but under-developed.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavior, expected results, and usage context. It identifies the underlying utility (mtr) but leaves most operational context missing.
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%, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Monitor network path using mtr.' An agent can infer the basic diagnostic function, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as traceroute_path or ping_host.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus traceroute_path, ping_host, or other network diagnostics. 'Monitor' implies a diagnostic use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.