Generate Cisco IOS configuration lines for a specified feature and parameters without applying them, so you can preview or validate commands before pushing them to a device.
Generate IOS config lines for a feature without applying them. See ios_features for names/params. e.g. ('dhcp_pool', {'name':'LAN','network':'192.168.1.0/24','dns':'8.8.8.8','exclude_first':10}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | ||
| feature | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that no configuration is applied and points to ios_features for parameter discovery, but it does not describe validation behavior, error cases, or the exact return shape beyond 'config lines'.
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 front-loaded, uses two short sentences plus one compact example, and contains no filler. Every part contributes to understanding how to call the tool.
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?
For a generator tool with no output schema, the description explains that it produces config lines without applying them and delegates feature/param details to ios_features. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the return format or validation behavior, but it is sufficient for 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by pointing to ios_features for valid feature names and params, and by giving a concrete example showing the feature string plus a feature-specific params object, though it does not enumerate all possible feature/param combinations.
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: generate IOS config lines for a feature without applying them. It also names ios_features as the source for feature names and parameters, and the 'without applying' wording distinguishes it from configuration-application 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?
It clearly directs the agent to use ios_features to discover valid feature names and params, and 'without applying them' implies preview/generation rather than mutation. It does not explicitly name the sibling apply tool or state exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.