Retrieves Cisco Packet Tracer topology data: device models, positions, power, interfaces, peers, and link state; set detail for MACs, switchport modes, descriptions, and unused ports.
Whole canvas, compact: every device (model, position, power) with its addressed/cabled interfaces, peers and link state. detail=true adds MACs, switchport modes, descriptions and unused ports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | 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 adds genuine value by enumerating exactly what the compact payload contains and what detail=true layers on (MACs, switchport modes, descriptions, unused ports). It does not mention behavior with no active canvas or payload size, but the cost/benefit of the detail flag is clearly disclosed.
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, zero filler, with the payload contents front-loaded before the detail-flag modifier. Every clause maps to something an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description bears the return-value burden and largely discharges it by naming the fields returned at each detail level. Minor gaps remain around error/empty-canvas behavior and payload size, which matter for a whole-canvas dump.
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 carry the single parameter, and it does: detail=false is the compact default, detail=true adds MACs, switchport modes, descriptions and unused ports. Only the exact output shape of the added fields is left unspecified.
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 retrieval over a specific resource: the whole canvas, with every device's model, position, power, interfaces, peers and link state. The 'whole canvas' scope implicitly separates it from siblings like pt_device (single device) and pt_running_config, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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: 'whole canvas, compact' suggests an overview call and detail=true suggests a deeper inspection. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pt_device, pt_show, or pt_status, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.