Control Cisco Packet Tracer simulation mode to switch realtime/simulation, send ICMP PDUs, step events, reset, and inspect recent frames and status for troubleshooting.
Simulation mode control. action: simulation|realtime (switch mode), pdu (simple ICMP PDU src->dst), forward/back (steps events), reset, frames (last events with status), status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dst | No | ||
| src | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only openWorldHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the disclosure burden. It says what actions exist, but not what side effects occur, whether 'reset' is destructive, what state changes happen when switching simulation/realtime mode, or what any action returns.
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 compact and front-loads the tool's purpose before the action list. It contains no filler, though the dense action enumeration and abbreviations like 'src->dst' make it slightly cryptic.
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 stateful simulation-control tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is too thin. It lists actions but omits prerequisites, side effects of reset or mode changes, output behavior, and conditional parameter rules needed to invoke it correctly.
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 usefully explains action values and ties src/dst to 'pdu' and steps to 'forward/back', but it does not document required/conditional parameter combinations, defaults such as steps=1, or accepted string formats for src/dst.
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 clear control purpose ('Simulation mode control') and enumerates specific actions: switch mode, send PDU, step events, reset, list frames, status. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like pt_fast_forward, pt_ping, or pt_traceroute, but the action list makes the tool's scope understandable.
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 description lists available actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pt_fast_forward or pt_ping. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that select one action over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.