Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP_HCL

MCP_HCL

by cheese-sansan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

hcl_inspect_project

Read devices and links from a saved HCL project without altering it, so you can inspect topology before creating staged copies.

Instructions

Read devices and links from one saved HCL project without changing it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "hcl_inspect_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that the operation does not modify the project, which is valuable, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or scope limits. The read-only disclosure is the main value-add.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero wasted words. It is exactly as long as it needs to be for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is low-complexity with one parameter. The description covers purpose and the non-mutation behavior; the only real gap is the undocumented project_path semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one parameter (project_path) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the path refers to a 'saved HCL project' but gives no format, path style, or resolution details, leaving the sole parameter effectively undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (read) and resource (devices and links from one saved HCL project), which is clearly distinguishable from hcl_list_projects and the stage_* write tools. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not reach the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 phrase 'one saved HCL project' implies you use this to inspect a project that already exists, and 'without changing it' implies a safe read. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., hcl_list_projects vs this), and no stated prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools