vyos-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

vyos_merge

Merge a configuration into the running config of a VyOS router using a file path or an inline string in curly-brace format.

Instructions

Merge a configuration into the running config.

Provide either a file path on the router or an inline
config string (VyOS curly-brace format).

Args:
    file: Path to config file on the router
    string: Inline config in VyOS format, e.g.
        'interfaces { ethernet eth1 { description "test" } }'

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "vyos_merge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	No
`string`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'merge into running config' without clarifying if it replaces, appends, or requires privileges, or what happens on failure. This lacks sufficient behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then explains parameters. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and only 2 parameters with low schema coverage, the description covers basic usage but omits return values, error handling, and behavioral nuances. It is minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining that 'file' is a path on the router and 'string' is inline config in VyOS format, including an example format. This compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Merge a configuration into the running config') and distinguishes from sibling tools like vyos_configure or vyos_load by specifying 'merge' and providing input methods (file path or inline string).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions providing either a file path or inline string, implying when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like vyos_configure or vyos_load.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.