Lists Cisco Packet Tracer device models with ports, slots, and usage notes, optionally filtered by category or showing supported modules, to select exact devices for adding.
Device models PT 9 offers (exact names for pt_add_devices) with ports, slots and usage notes. category: router | switch | l3-switch | host | firewall | ap | wireless-router ... modules=true lists modules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modules | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the return content (ports, slots, usage notes) and the modules flag behavior, but says nothing about output format, pagination, or whether an unfiltered call returns every model.
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 dense sentences with no filler, and the primary payload (model names for pt_add_devices) is front-loaded. The telegraphic enum dump is compact but readable.
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 two-optional-param read-only catalog with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the category vocabulary, and the modules switch. Only edge behavior (empty result, full unfiltered listing) is unaddressed, which is minor here.
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 0%, so the description has to carry the parameters — and it largely does: it enumerates the category values (router | switch | l3-switch | host | firewall | ap | wireless-router) and explains that modules=true lists modules. That is substantial compensation for a bare schema; only the default behavior of modules=false is left implicit.
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 resource (device models offered by PT 9) plus what each entry contains: ports, slots, usage notes. It also ties itself to a sibling (pt_add_devices) as the source of exact names. It is not fully explicit that this is a read-only listing tool, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
The parenthetical '(exact names for pt_add_devices)' implies the main use case — look up names before adding devices — but never says so directly, and no exclusions or alternatives (e.g. pt_device_modules, pt_add_module) are named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.