Runs privileged show or exec commands on Cisco routers and switches and returns their output, with optional regex filtering to keep only matching lines.
Run show/exec commands (privileged EXEC) on a router/switch and return their output. commands: one or more, e.g. ['show ip interface brief', 'show ip route']. grep: optional regex; keep only matching lines (like '| include').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grep | No | ||
| device | Yes | ||
| commands | Yes |
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 usefully adds that execution is at privileged EXEC level (not config mode) and that output is returned. It does not say whether multiple commands share one session, whether output is truncated, or how device errors/timeouts surface, which matters for an open-ended command runner.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then parameter notes. Compact and waste-free, though the fragmentary 'commands:' / 'grep:' lines read as loose notes rather than a structured statement.
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 should carry more: the 'device' identifier format is undocumented, and nothing is said about failure modes (unreachable device, invalid command) or output size limits. For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 carries the load: it explains 'commands' (one or more, with examples) and 'grep' (optional regex, line-filtering like '| include') well. However, the required 'device' parameter gets no explanation at all — no hint whether it is a topology name, hostname, or ID — leaving a required parameter undefined.
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 ('Run show/exec commands') and resource (privileged EXEC on a router/switch) plus the return behavior. It clearly separates itself from config-mode tools by naming 'privileged EXEC', though it does not name a sibling like pt_cli or pt_running_config to disambiguate further.
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: the examples ('show ip interface brief', 'show ip route') and the '| include'-style grep hint tell an agent the intended shape, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pt_cli, pt_running_config, or pt_diagnose, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.