Reads an IOS device's running or startup configuration from the device model without paging, optionally filtering to sections whose header matches text like 'interface' or 'router ospf'.
Running (or startup) config of an IOS device, read from the device model (fast, no paging). section: only blocks whose header contains this text, e.g. 'interface', 'router ospf', 'line vty'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | ||
| section | No | ||
| startup | 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, and the description adds genuine behavioral context: the config is read from the device model, is fast, and involves no paging. That clarifies the read path beyond the annotations.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted wording. The section clarification is appropriately placed as a second sentence.
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 3-param read tool with no output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what it returns (config text), the model-read behavior, and how to filter by section. Only minor gaps remain (explicit startup semantics).
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 must compensate. It explains 'section' thoroughly with concrete examples and its parenthetical '(or startup)' maps to the startup flag; 'device' is self-evident. This largely fills the schema gap, though startup is only implied rather than stated directly.
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 resource (running/startup config of an IOS device) and how it is retrieved (read from the device model). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic CLI tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling like pt_show.
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 phrase 'fast, no paging' implies this is preferable to a paged CLI read, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not is given. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.