Packet-Tracer-MCP

by cvz-dev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific action and device type, with clear boundaries. Configuration tools are separated by protocol (VLAN, DHCP, OSPF, NAT, ACL, STP, EtherChannel, VoIP, etc.), and management tools (create, delete, move, connect) are distinct. The only minor overlap is between conectar_dispositivos and conectar_router_a_pc, but the latter is a specialized helper with a clear purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Spanish, using snake_case. Prefixes like crear_, configurar_, eliminar_, obtener_, and listar_ are uniformly applied, making the toolset predictable and easy to navigate. No mixing of naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, the server exceeds the recommended range for a coherent toolset (typically 3-15). While the broad network simulation domain justifies many functions, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and increase the risk of misselection. The count is heavy even for a complex domain.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage of the Packet Tracer domain: device lifecycle (create, delete, move), connection management, and deep configuration for routing, switching, VLANs, DHCP, DNS, wireless, security (ACL, NAT), STP, EtherChannel, VoIP, and static/OSPF routing. It also includes topology building, diagnostics, and ping verification, leaving no critical gaps for typical network design tasks.
Average 4/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation (configuration change) but does not state effects on existing configurations, whether the operation is reversible, any permission requirements, or error scenarios. The example gives a sense of input but not what happens after execution.
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, with the purpose front-loaded and bullet points for parameters. It includes an example that clarifies usage without excessive verbosity. It earns its place with minimal fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, unknown output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not define two required parameters, lacks behavioral details, and relies on an example to infer structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return description, but input semantics are insufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'redes' with format and examples, and 'router_id' with an example, but omits 'router' and 'process_id' entirely. These are required parameters, leaving an agent guessing their meaning and format.
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 clearly states 'Configura OSPF en un router Cisco' which identifies the specific verb (Configura) and resource (OSPF on a Cisco router). It is distinct from sibling tools like static routing or NAT configuration, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives. The example further clarifies the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description simply states what it configures, without mentioning prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The example shows usage but does not clarify when OSPF is preferred over other routing methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool 'generates' Cisco CLI commands (e.g., 'ip dhcp pool', 'network', 'default-router') and shows an example output. However, it does not detail side effects like overwriting existing pools, permission requirements, or behavior on errors. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and while it clarifies the core operation, it lacks depth on potential impacts.
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?
The description is concise, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a clear example. The example is front-loaded, giving immediate practical context. There is no fluff; every element earns its place. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a configuration tool with 6 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the example alone is insufficient. The description does not cover prerequisites (e.g., router must exist), error handling, idempotency, or what happens if a pool with the same name exists. While an output schema is present, without seeing it, the agent lacks complete information to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios. The description is too sparse for a network configuration action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The example maps values to parameters (router='R1', pool_name='LAN_VENTAS', red='192.168.10.0', etc.), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain each parameter in isolation (e.g., what 'red' means) or cover edge cases. The DNS default is mentioned implicitly via the example, but there's no systematic explanation of all six parameters.
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 states the specific action: 'Configura un pool DHCP en un router Cisco' (Configures a DHCP pool on a Cisco router). This is a clear verb+resource with a defined scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like configurar_vlan or configurar_ruta_estatica by focusing on DHCP pool setup. The example further clarifies what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., configurar_dhcp_servidor). The description provides an example but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions when another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and context rather than direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing NAT configs are overwritten, if the router must be pre-configured, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 well-structured with bullet points and a usage example. It is efficient, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. The only minor improvement would be to reduce redundancy, but it is appropriately sized.
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 tool's complexity and the absence of schema descriptions, the description provides basics and an example but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., router existence, interface availability, ACL creation) and behavioral effects. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing 'router' parameter definition and lack of operational context leave room for error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must document parameters. It explains interfaz_inside, interfaz_outside, and acl_number with examples, but omits the required 'router' parameter entirely. The example shows it ('R1') but doesn't define it, so an agent may not know its purpose or format.
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 verb 'Configura' and the specific resource 'NAT overload (PAT)' with the purpose 'para salida a Internet'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configurar_ruta_estatica or configurar_ospf by explicitly naming the protocol and goal.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for NAT configuration but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or when other tools would be more appropriate. An agent must infer from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does and presents an example output. It does not describe error conditions (e.g., duplicate VLAN ID, invalid ID range), idempotency, side effects on existing configuration, or whether the operation is reversible. The absence of such context leaves the agent uncertain about potential outcomes.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of a purpose statement and an example. The purpose is front-loaded, and every element serves to clarify usage. There is no redundant information; it is efficient and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters), additional context is needed. The description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., must target an existing switch), valid VLAN ID ranges, or potential conflicts. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the lack of usage boundaries and error handling details leaves the agent under-informed for a configuration-mutating tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It does so via the example mapping 'configurar_vlan('SW1', 10, 'VENTAS')' which indicates the order and provides sample values. However, it does not explain value constraints (e.g., VLAN ID range, name length, character restrictions), leaving some ambiguity. The parameter names themselves are fairly descriptive, but the example only partially compensates for the missing schema details.
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 action: 'Crea y nombra una VLAN en un switch Cisco' (creates and names a VLAN on a Cisco switch). It provides an example call with expected output, making the purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools like configurar_trunk or asignar_puerto_vlan, which handle different aspects of VLAN management.
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 implies usage through the example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisite conditions (e.g., switch must exist, must be in configuration mode) or when not to use it (e.g., for port assignment). The example gives a calling pattern but lacks guidance on selection among similar network configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns but does not state that it is read-only (though it implies it), nor does it mention error behavior, side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a status-query tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.
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?
Two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and a useful example. No redundant phrasing or filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 (indicated by the context signal), so the return format is defined separately. The description adds value by listing the fields returned. For a single-parameter read tool, it covers the essentials, though it does not address error cases or differentiate from sibling tools, which would elevate it to a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for the 'nombre' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description offers an example ('obtener_estado_dispositivo("Router0")') that clarifies it expects a device name string. This provides some semantics, but it does not specify constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, whether the device must exist). The example compensates partially but not fully.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('obtener') and resource ('estado de un dispositivo'), and enumerates the returned fields (nombre, tipo, puertos, estado de conexión). It includes a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'obtener_puertos_dispositivo', though the mention of connection state makes it distinct, so it is not a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example implies a typical call, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over obtener_puertos_dispositivo or listar_dispositivos, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the image is returned as real visual content rather than base64 text, plus construction instructions, and accepted formats are listed. What's missing is failure behavior (e.g., file not found, unsupported format) and what happens if the image can't be parsed.
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 well-organized with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return format, supported formats, path rules, and a usage example. Each block earns its place; it is slightly multiline-verbose but appropriate for a single-parameter tool and reads naturally in Spanish.
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?
For a simple one-parameter loader with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, return behavior, accepted formats, path semantics, and an example. The only gaps are error handling and how this step fits into the broader topology-building workflow, which are minor for a tool of this simplicity.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Ruta Imagen'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it clearly explains the path can be absolute or relative to the project folder and provides a concrete example ('diagramas/ejemplo-red1.jpeg'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema for the single required parameter.
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 clear verb+resource+outcome: it loads a network diagram image so the agent can view it and reproduce the topology in Packet Tracer. The purpose is specific and implicitly distinct from the configuration/connection siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest related tool (construir_topologia_desde_descripcion), leaving the image-vs-description distinction implied rather than stated.
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 supported file formats and the path rules (absolute or project-relative) give useful context about when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as construir_topologia_desde_descripcion, so the agent must infer the right choice from the two similar build-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Configura' (configures) without describing what changes are made, whether it overwrites existing settings, requires prior router creation, or is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement, a parameter list, and an example. It is not overly verbose, and the key information (purpose) is front-loaded. The structure aids quick comprehension.
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?
Covers all parameters and gives an example, but omits prerequisites (e.g., a router must already exist) and side effects. An output schema exists, so return values are defined elsewhere, but the lack of behavioral and usage context makes it incomplete for safe, correct invocation.
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?
The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter (max_telefonos, max_dn, red_voip, extensiones) and providing an example. The router parameter is not explicitly explained but is implied by the example. This adds value beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Configura Cisco CME (Call Manager Express) para telefonía IP en un router.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like configurar_vlan or configurar_ruta_estatica, which handle other network features.
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?
Provides an example call but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The context implies it is for VoIP configuration, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of sibling tools that might be more appropriate for other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the generated command, which is useful, but it does not cover side effects, prerequisites (e.g., router must exist), idempotency, error conditions, or whether it overwrites existing routes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one action sentence plus one example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the example is immediately illustrative. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are presumably defined. The description covers the essential usage via the example. However, it does not explain when the route addition would fail (e.g., router not found, invalid network), or any constraints on the parameters. Given the tool's simplicity and the example, it is mostly complete, but missing preconditions and error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The example maps parameters to the command (router, red_destino, mascara, nexthop), adding meaning beyond bare names. However, it does not describe each parameter individually or clarify formats (e.g., IP notation), relying mostly on the example. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Agrega una ruta estática a un router Cisco.' It also provides a concrete example showing the generated command, which makes the purpose unmistakable and distinctly differentiates it from siblings like configurar_ruta_default or configurar_ospf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for adding static routes, which provides context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use configurar_ruta_default for default routes'), so it lacks explicit routing guidance but is still clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes parameters and modes but says nothing about side effects, whether it overwrites existing configuration, if it requires the switch to be online, or what the response contains. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap. The example shows invocation but not outcomes.
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?
The description is compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, bullet-pointed modes, parameter notes, and a concrete example. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable.
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 complexity of STP configuration and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description covers parameter semantics and gives an example, but it lacks behavioral and environmental context (e.g., prerequisites, return format, error conditions). It is adequate for a straightforward call but not fully complete for an agent operating in a broader topology.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains vlan_id behavior ('si se especifica, aplica prioridad solo a esa VLAN'), prioridad constraints (0-61440, multiples of 4096, lower = root bridge preferred), and clarifies each mode. It does not describe the switch parameter, but the example implies it. This substantially helps an agent understand how to set values correctly.
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 verb and resource: 'Configura Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) en un switch Cisco.' It also specifies the available modes, making it distinct from other configuration tools like configurar_ospf or configurar_nat. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 provides guidance on choosing a mode (recommending rapid-pvst) but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternative tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring a connected switch. However, the domain is clear from the name, and the mode guidance helps within the tool. Overall, usage context is partially implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the two actions (physical connection and IP configuration) but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing IPs, prerequisites like device existence, or whether the action is reversible. Moderate transparency.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the secondary action. No wasted words, efficiently conveys the essential information.
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?
Although the tool has no parameters and the action is clear, the description omits context such as whether the devices need to already exist, whether the connection modifies existing topology, or any prerequisites. For a zero-param tool with an output schema, it is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none; the action is fully specified. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb, 'Conecta' (connects), with a specific resource pair, 'Router_Maestro con PC_IA', and includes a second action, 'configura sus IPs'. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'conectar_dispositivos' by naming the exact devices involved.
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 implies usage for connecting those two specific devices, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'conectar_dispositivos', nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. The intent is inferable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'activa el servicio y añade el pool', which is a visible effect, and it imposes the Server-PT restriction. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting an existing pool, idempotency, or any prerequisites (e.g., server must exist and be a Server-PT). This is adequate but incomplete for a mutating configuration tool.
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 well-structured with a clear leading sentence, bullet points for key parameters, and a concrete example. It is slightly verbose but each part adds value (e.g., the VLAN relay tip and the example). The main action is front-loaded, and the example serves to clarify usage without excessive fluff.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, key parameter semantics, a usage example, and a VLAN-specific hint. It does not detail every parameter or error conditions, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in most scenarios. The explicit router exclusion and relay guidance add valuable context that goes beyond the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It defines 'gateway', 'ip_inicial', and 'dns' explicitly, and the example clarifies the positional order. However, it leaves 'mascara', 'interfaz', 'max_usuarios' unexplained beyond their names and defaults, which may be ambiguous (e.g., what does 'interfaz' mean for a server? Default FastEthernet0). This partial coverage does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 states a specific action: 'Crea un pool DHCP en el servicio DHCP de un Server-PT' and explicitly distinguishes it from routers ('no en un router'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tool configurar_dhcp likely used for routers. It also maps to the DHCP tab of the server's Services, making the resource and scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool: for creating a DHCP pool on a Server-PT, and even provides guidance for multiple VLANs ('llama una vez por pool y usa 'ip helper-address...'). It excludes routers explicitly. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool for router DHCP, but the exclusion is clear enough to route the agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that 'on' mode requires both sides to be 'on' and lists the mode options, but omits what happens if the switch is invalid, if ports are unavailable, or the return value. Idempotency and overwrite behavior are also not addressed. Some context is provided, but significant gaps remain.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted list of modes, parameter details, and a complete example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The example makes usage unambiguous, and the front-loaded purpose helps the agent quickly understand the tool's role.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core concepts and gives an example, but it lacks information about return values, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., switch exists, ports free), and edge cases (e.g., overlapping ports). The output schema is not visible, so the description should have mentioned what the tool returns. This makes it only partially complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and no parameter descriptions exist in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents 'puertos' with an example format, 'channel_group' with the valid range (1-48), and includes the 'modo' default via the example. The 'switch' parameter is not described but is self-evident from the context. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 configures EtherChannel (Link Aggregation) on a Cisco switch, lists the supported negotiation modes (LACP, PAgP, on), and provides a concrete example that includes all parameters. This distinguishes it from related tools like configurar_trunk or configurar_vlan, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explains the modes and gives an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for bundling ports for redundancy/bandwidth) or when not to use it (e.g., if ports are already in a channel). The usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It discloses the critical platform nuance: on 3560/3650 multilayer switches 'switchport mode trunk' is rejected unless 'switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q' is set first, while that command does not exist on 2960 switches. It also reveals that the function queries the real model in PT and sends the appropriate command set, which is rich, non-obvious behavior.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter guidance, then the critical platform warning, then the example. Every sentence earns its place, including the BEWARE note and the example call. It is slightly long but the length is justified by the genuinely important switch-model caveat.
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?
Given the tool's real complexity (it must adapt commands based on switch model), the description covers the essential ground: purpose, parameter semantics, and the behavioral caveat that differentiates switch models. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It fully explains vlans_permitidas ('all' vs comma-separated list) and provides a concrete call example demonstrating switch and puerto usage. The two required parameters are self-evident from their names, but their accepted format (e.g., how to reference a port) is only illustrated, not specified.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Configures a port as 802.1Q trunk' with the use case (switch-to-switch link or switch↔router for router-on-a-stick). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as configurar_vlan and asignar_puerto_vlan, which handle access-port VLAN assignment rather than trunk configuration.
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 gives clear context for when the tool applies (trunk links, router-on-a-stick) and the example shows the intended call. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names the alternative tools (asignar_puerto_vlan for access ports, configurar_vlan for VLAN creation), leaving the routing decision to inference rather than explicit exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral burden. It discloses that .pkt is appended if no extension is given, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the file will be overwritten, where it is saved (directory), or what the return/success indicator is. The description adds some value but lacks depth expected for an unannotated mutation tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. The primary action is front-loaded, and the extension-handling behavior is stated in the second sentence. No redundant text exists. Every part contributes to understanding.
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?
The tool is simple with one clear parameter, and an output schema exists (which may detail return values). However, the description omits information about overwrite behavior, file path/location, and error handling. For a persistence operation, these details matter to an agent deciding how to invoke it safely. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation without annotations.
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?
The schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the parameter is the filename, that the .pkt extension is added automatically if missing, and gives a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (just a string type). It doesn't cover edge cases like path specification, but the core semantics are clarified.
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 action (saves), the resource (current topology), and the output format (.pkt file). This unambiguously distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are configuration, creation, or diagnostic operations. The example reinforces the purpose.
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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. However, the action 'save' is inherently distinct from the sibling tools, and the example gives a clear usage pattern. No explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a canvas modification by saying 'agrega' (adds), but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a simple add operation, this is minimal but not misleading; a 3 is appropriate given the lack of explicit behavioral detail.
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?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a usage context and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple label-adding tool, the description includes a full usage example and typical scenarios. It does not detail the output (there is an output schema, but not described), yet given the simplicity of the operation, the absence of return-value details is unlikely to impede correct usage. The example effectively demonstrates the parameter order and types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The example 'agregar_etiqueta('SEDE CENTRAL', 200, 50)' clarifies that 'texto' is a string and 'x' and 'y' are coordinates. However, it does not explicitly document each parameter or explain coordinate meaning beyond the example. This adds some value but could be more explicit.
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 function with a specific verb ('Agrega') and resource ('una etiqueta de texto al canvas'). It also gives example label texts that indicate typical use. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about device configuration or connectivity, none of which add text labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions when to use it ('Útil para documentar zonas de la topología') and provides an example. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives among the 40 sibling tools. Since the purpose is clear and no other tool appears to add labels, this is still adequate without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It shows the exact command generated ('ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 200.0.0.1'), which clearly indicates it modifies router configuration. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., router must exist), whether it replaces an existing default route, or error handling. The example gives a concrete sense of the effect, but lacks details on side effects or edge cases.
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?
The description is concise: three sentences total, including an example and the generated command. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a tool with only two simple parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and provides a concrete example. An output schema is present (though not shown), so return value details are delegated. Missing elements like prerequisites or error handling are minor for such a straightforward configuration command. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to use correctly in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The example 'configurar_ruta_default('R1', '200.0.0.1')' implies that 'router' is the device name and 'nexthop' is the IP address, and the generated command clarifies their roles. However, the description does not explicitly define each parameter, their types, or valid formats. It provides enough context via the example, but a formal definition would be stronger.
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 function: 'Configura la ruta por defecto (default route) en un router' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from other routing tools like static route, OSPF, etc., by explicitly defining what a default route does ('enviar tráfico desconocido hacia el ISP o gateway de salida'). The example and generated command reinforce the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context: 'Usada para enviar tráfico desconocido hacia el ISP o gateway de salida' (used to send unknown traffic toward the ISP or outbound gateway). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like static route for specific destinations, but the purpose statement makes the appropriate scenario clear. There's no explicit 'when not to use', but the context is sufficient for common cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it does not actually execute a ping but verifies interface status and device existence, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the API limitation, providing valuable transparency beyond the tool name and schema.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise explanation of method and illustrative examples. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
With an output schema present and a clear description of the check logic and limitations, the tool is adequately specified for an agent to use correctly. It could mention error conditions more explicitly, but overall it covers the essential usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions, so the examples provide some meaning for the parameters, indicating source device and destination IP. However, it does not give detailed constraints or formats, so it only partially compensates for zero schema coverage.
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 it verifies connectivity via ping from a source device to a destination IP, with concrete examples. It distinguishes from broader diagnostic tools by specifying the exact operation and scope.
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?
It explains the internal method and PT's limitation, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like diagnosticar_red or verificar_entorno. The context is implied from the examples but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool modifies the DNS service by activating it and adding records, but it does not mention side effects such as whether existing records are overwritten, whether the service is idempotent, or any prerequisites beyond the server being a Server-PT. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not address reversibility or error conditions, leaving behavioral transparency insufficient.
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?
The description is concise, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a parameter example and a usage note. Each sentence contributes essential information, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main action, parameter format, and a client-facing requirement. However, it lacks mention of any preconditions (e.g., the server must be properly configured with an IP) or potential errors, which could be useful for an agent. Still, for the typical use case of configuring DNS, it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the registros parameter format explicitly with an example: {'nombre.dominio': 'ip'}. This is critical because the schema only defines registros as an object with string values, without specifying key/value semantics. The servidor parameter is self-explanatory, and while the description adds no extra meaning to it, the registros format is fully clarified, significantly aiding correct invocation.
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 states exactly what the tool does: it activates the DNS service on a Server-PT and adds A records. The verbs 'activa' and 'añade' are specific, and the resource 'Server-PT' is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like configurar_dhcp by focusing on DNS records specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context on when to use it: after configuring the DNS server, clients must point to this server's IP via DHCP or manual settings. This implies the tool is for DNS setup, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like configurar_dhcp_servidor. There's clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the action (moves an existing device) and that it's a mutation, but does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., if the device doesn't exist), or whether the operation is reversible. It adds no contradiction, but the transparency is minimal beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is concise—two sentences plus an example—with the main action front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple move operation with an output schema available, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., if the device name is invalid or coordinates are out of bounds), nor does it clarify the return value. While the output schema might cover the return, the lack of error-handling guidance leaves a gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example 'mover_dispositivo('R1', 300, 150)' implicitly maps 'nombre' to the device name and x/y to the new coordinates, providing concrete usage. It doesn't describe each parameter individually, but the example is sufficient for a simple 3-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('Mueve'), a resource ('dispositivo existente'), and a destination ('nuevas coordenadas en el canvas'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crear_dispositivo (create) or eliminar_dispositivo (delete). The example further reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is useful for visually reorganizing the topology, implying it should be used when repositioning devices. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the functional behavior (assigning a port in access/trunk mode) and shows example calls. However, it does not mention side effects like modifying switch configuration, potential requirements (e.g., switch/port must exist), or reversibility. Since this is an operation that likely alters network state, the lack of such disclosure is a gap, but the description is not misleading.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured. The first line states the core purpose, followed by bullet-like explanations of the two modes, and then explicit examples. It front-loads the essential information and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers the main functionality, modes, and parameter usage. It could mention that this is a configuration-writing operation or prerequisites, but the examples and mode explanations suffice for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.
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?
The schema provides no per-parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so through examples: it shows that 'puerto' takes values like 'FastEthernet0/1' and 'vlan_id' as an integer, and explains 'modo' with its two allowed values. The description adds meaning beyond the schema names by clarifying the role of each parameter in context, though it doesn't explicitly list them one by one.
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 purpose: 'Asigna un puerto de un switch a una VLAN en modo access o trunk.' It specifies the verb (asignar), resource (puerto de switch), and context (VLAN). It also distinguishes between the two modes (access vs trunk) and provides concrete examples, making it unmistakable from sibling tools like configurar_vlan or configurar_trunk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance for the two modes: access for a single end device (PC, phone, server) and trunk for inter-switch or switch-router links. It gives examples for each mode, which directly informs when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the mode explanations imply appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Devuelve la lista' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'antes de hacer cambios' suggests it does not modify anything, the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it only reads the canvas. It also does not describe any limits, ordering, or potential variations in what is returned. Adequate but missing explicit declaration of non-mutating behavior.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the use-case statement is brief and informative. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only list 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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and when to use it. Although there is an output schema, its contents are not shown here, and the description does not detail the exact return format. However, for a simple list operation, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.
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?
This tool has 0 parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns.
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 states a specific verb ('Devuelve la lista') and a clear resource ('todos los dispositivos presentes en el canvas de Packet Tracer'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like crear_dispositivo, eliminar_dispositivo, and obtener_estado_dispositivo, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence ('Útil para saber qué hay en la topología antes de hacer cambios') provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is clear and distinct from more specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool sends commands (side effect) and that the output is not returned in the API response, requiring console inspection. This is a critical behavioral trait that is transparently disclosed. It does not mention any permission requirements, but for a show command in a simulator this is a minor gap.
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?
The description is three concise sentences plus an example, with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the critical limitation and then the example. Every sentence adds necessary information and the structure is easy to parse.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, why the output is only on the console, and an example. The presence of an output schema (not shown here) likely covers return values. Minor gaps include not specifying what happens if the device is unreachable or doesn't exist, but overall the definition is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the single parameter 'nombre' and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so implicitly via the example call 'obtener_tabla_routing('Router0')', which indicates the parameter is a device name. However, it does not explicitly state that 'nombre' must be the name of a router or L3 switch, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the context.
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 sends two specific IOS commands ('show ip route' and 'show ip interface brief') to a router or L3 switch. It identifies the resource and action precisely, and highlights a key differentiator from other diagnostic tools by noting the output appears on the device console, not via the API.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes the Packet Tracer limitation (output not returned via API) and instructs the user to open the console to see results. This sets clear expectations for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling diagnostics like 'diagnosticar_red' or state when not to use it. The provided example adds practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it emphasizes the apply action ('LA APLICA'), warns that an unapplied ACL blocks nothing and would register rules with no effect (including that the function itself warns in the response), and explains the implicit 'deny ip any any' at the end of every ACL and its blocking consequence. This is thorough transparency for a mutating tool with real network side effects.
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 front-loaded with the single-sentence purpose, then organized into parameter bullets, an IMPORTANT callout, an implicit-deny note, and one realistic example. It is long but every section earns its keep given zero schema coverage and the tool's complexity (rule syntax, direction semantics, silent-failure trap); the parameter bullet section could arguably be slimmed but nothing is redundant.
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?
This is a high-complexity tool (rule formatting, number ranges, direction, implicit deny) with zero schema coverage and zero annotations; the output schema at least covers return values. The description covers purpose, all critical semantics, the no-effect trap, the implicit deny, and a full guest-network example. The only gap is tipo never explained in the body and the acl_number/tipo mapping not made explicit, which is minor against an otherwise complete definition.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: acl_number (range meaning), reglas (format plus concrete standard/extended examples), interfaz (target with examples), and direccion (in/out semantics). The gaps are tipo and router, which appear only in the example call (tipo='extended', 'CORE-SW') rather than being explained in the body; the acl_number-to-tipo correspondence is implied but never stated.
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 first sentence states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Crea una ACL en un router o switch L3' and adds the dual behavior (creates AND applies if an interface is given). This cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling config tools (configurar_vlan, configurar_nat, configurar_ospf) which are each scoped to a different technology. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives strong when/how-to guidance: acl_number ranges (1-99 vs 100-199), the rule format without the 'access-list N' prefix with standard and extended examples, interface naming examples ('GigabitEthernet0/0', 'Vlan50'), and the in/out direction semantics. It explains when to use 'in' (blocking a source VLAN). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for exclusion, but the usage is clearly scoped to ACL management by domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action is irreversible ('Esta acción no se puede deshacer') and clearly defines the scope (all devices and connections). This goes beyond what the empty schema indicates and provides critical safety information for a destructive operation. It stops short of describing any confirmation or rollback details, but the core destructive trait is transparent.
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?
The description is two short sentences. The first states the action and scope, front-loading the key purpose. The second adds a necessary safety warning. There is no redundant or filler content—every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, destructive bulk operation, this description is complete. It clearly states what is removed (all devices and connections), the scope (canvas), and the irreversible nature. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. An agent has all the information needed to decide and execute the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers them (trivially). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific value (nor does it need to). It correctly implies that the action is global with no arguments.
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 action: 'Elimina TODOS los dispositivos y conexiones del canvas' (Eliminates ALL devices and connections from the canvas). It specifies the verb ('Elimina'), the resource ('dispositivos y conexiones'), and the scope (all, on the canvas). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'eliminar_dispositivo' and 'eliminar_conexion', which are targeted deletes.
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 usage context is implied through the bold 'TODOS' (ALL) and the warning, suggesting it is intended for clearing the entire canvas versus selectively deleting specific items. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives like 'eliminar_dispositivo' or 'eliminar_conexion' for targeted removal, nor any 'when to use/not use' guidance. It stops short of explicit guidance, so it earns a 3 for implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that installation is hot-swappable, that 'auto' selects the correct card based on the router model, that ports are verified after installation, and that slot 0 is the first free slot. It does not mention failure modes or side effects like config preservation, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and consistent.
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 long but each section earns its place: purpose, mandatory rule, model mapping, workflow, module list, and slot clarification. It front-loads the primary purpose and progressive reveals procedural detail. No fluff, though the length is justified by the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for an agent: it covers prerequisites (serial dual-install), parameter specifics (modulo mapping, slot), workflow, and behavioral guarantees. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable. The description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and when to use it.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'modulo' with the 'auto' default and model-to-card mapping, clarifies 'slot' with the free-slot note, and the 'nombre' parameter is understood from the flow example ('agregar_modulo_router('R1')'). While not every parameter gets a dedicated line, the context suffices.
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 states a specific action ('Instala una tarjeta de expansion en un router') and adds the unique confirmation behavior ('CONFIRMA que los puertos nuevos aparecieron'). It is distinct from the sibling 'instalar_tarjeta_wifi' because it explicitly enumerates non-wifi modules and never mentions wifi, making the scope clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a concrete workflow for serial links (installing cards on both routers before connecting), model-specific card selection rules, and a note about hot-swapping. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool for all non-wifi expansion cards and instalar_tarjeta_wifi for wifi', the omission of wifi from the module list implies this. The flow and rules give strong contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects of sending commands (e.g., irreversible config changes), authentication requirements, or error handling. While it gives formatting details, it does not elaborate on what happens after commands are sent. This is a moderate gap for a mutating tool.
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?
The description is concise but information-dense. It front-loads the action, immediately explains the line-separator syntax, provides a concrete example, and ends with a clear routing to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
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?
The description is complete for a simple two-parameter tool: it covers the core action, input formatting, and alternative tool. It does not mention output expectations or prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), but the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. Minor gaps around error conditions and device preconditions prevent a perfect score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'comandos_ios' thoroughly: it is a string of IOS commands separated by \n, with an example demonstrating the format. The 'nombre' parameter is not explicitly explained, but its name clearly indicates the device name. The description adds significant value for the most cryptic parameter.
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 action (sends console commands) and the specific resource (router or switch in Packet Tracer). It also provides an example and explicitly distinguishes from configurar_pc for PCs, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool (for routers/switches) and when not to (for PCs, laptops, servers, use configurar_pc instead). It also explains the input format with the '\n' separator and gives a concrete example, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 discloses the DHCP override behavior (“dhcp: True ... ignora ip/mascara/gateway”) and provides an example, but it does not mention side effects such as whether existing configurations are overwritten, prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), or error behavior. The transparency is partial rather than comprehensive.
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 well-structured: a purpose statement, a usage directive, a bullet-like parameter list, and an example. It is informative without being verbose, and front-loads the critical “use instead of” guidance. Slightly more compact could be possible, but every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given 6 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and an example. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device existence) or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a configuration tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters fully. It does: each parameter is described with its purpose, format examples (e.g., IP format, subnet mask, gateway), defaults (dns='8.8.8.8'), and interaction (dhcp ignoring others). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's raw types and defaults.
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 states a specific verb (“Configura la IP”) and resource (PC, Laptop o Servidor), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `configurar_dispositivo()` by directing use “para endpoints.” This makes its scope unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit usage directive: “Usa esta función en lugar de configurar_dispositivo() para endpoints,” naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. This is a clear when-to-use instruction with a sibling reference, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically detects if the device is an AP or client, that client association requires matching credentials, and that a wireless card is needed for clients. It also notes that 'clave' is mandatory except for 'abierta' security. These are behavioral details beyond a simple 'configures wifi' statement, providing a clear picture of expected behavior and prerequisites.
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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by bullet points for security and key specifics, then the detection/association rule, the wireless card prerequisite, and examples. While it is a bit longer than minimal, every sentence adds value and no fluff is present. The structure (bullets and examples) aids comprehension.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, an output schema (though not detailed here), and no annotations, the description covers the essential scenarios: configuring an AP, configuring a client with matching credentials, and the prerequisite hardware. It includes examples that demonstrate typical usage. It doesn't describe return values (covered by output schema) or error handling, but within the expected usage context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explains 'seguridad' with its allowed values ('wpa2-psk', 'wpa-psk', 'wep', 'abierta'), 'clave' as the password and its mandatory status except for 'abierta', and 'dispositivo' and 'ssid' through the provided examples. The examples directly map parameters to values, giving agents complete understanding of each parameter without needing schema descriptions.
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 opens with 'Configura SSID y seguridad de una red inalámbrica', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it applies to both access points and clients. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'instalar_tarjeta_wifi' (install wifi card) and 'configurar_dispositivo' (generic device config). The purpose is unambiguous and concrete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Para que un cliente se asocie, llámala con EXACTAMENTE el mismo ssid, seguridad y clave que su AP' and the prerequisite that a client must have a wireless card installed, referencing the factory Ethernet module that needs replacement. This implies when to use this tool vs. 'instalar_tarjeta_wifi' and gives concrete usage context, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the expected JSON format, mandatory fields (puerto1/puerto2), error handling (connection omitted if interface missing), accepted cable types, and a limitation (serial module not added automatically). This exceeds basic expectations for a complex tool, though it does not describe the return value or side effects on existing topology, which are partially covered by the output schema.
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 long but appropriately structured: it starts with the main purpose, then gives a code block with the expected JSON format, followed by key constraints and caveats. Every sentence adds value—the format is essential, the mandatory field note prevents errors, and the serial module caveat is critical. While somewhat verbose, it is justified for a tool with a single complex parameter.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the input format, mandatory fields, cable types, error handling, and a critical limitation. It also mentions the intended use case. While it does not explicitly state that it creates devices and connections (implied by 'construye'), the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to know how and when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document the parameter 'descripcion_json'. It provides a detailed JSON template with fields, examples, mandatory requirements, valid cable types, and configuration commands. This is comprehensive and goes far beyond the schema, making the parameter semantics crystal clear for an AI agent.
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 purpose: it builds a complete topology in Packet Tracer from a JSON description of devices and connections. It specifies the verb ('construye'), the resource ('topología completa'), and differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on bulk reproduction of topologies rather than individual operations like 'crear_dispositivo' or 'conectar_dispositivos'. The mention of analizar_imagen_topologia() also provides a clear use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool ('Útil para reproducir topologías guardadas o generadas por analizar_imagen_topologia()') and gives a critical caveat about serial modules needing manual addition via 'agregar_modulo_router()'. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or list alternative tools for simpler tasks, though the context implies it's for complete topologies. This is clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool operates per interface/port, not per device pair, which is critical for correct usage. It does not overstate capabilities and implies a single-cable deletion. This is sufficient for a straightforward operation, though it could mention error cases (e.g., nonexistent interface) for completeness.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: the main purpose is stated first, then a clarification of the per-port behavior, and finally a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. The example is particularly effective and front-loaded before any less critical details.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the core operation and the critical nuance about multiple cables. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device existence) but these are implied and not essential for a basic delete operation. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.
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?
The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'interfaz' parameter as a specific interface on the device ('interfaz concreta') and providing an example that clarifies both 'dispositivo' (device name) and 'interfaz' (e.g., GigabitEthernet0/0). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema fields, though it could explicitly state that 'dispositivo' is the device hostname.
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 verb ('Elimina') and resource ('el cable conectado a una interfaz concreta de un dispositivo'), distinguishing it from siblings like eliminar_dispositivo or limpiar_topologia. The example reinforces the exact action and parameterization, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: Packet Tracer deletes by port, not device pair, so users must specify the interface when multiple cables connect two devices. It includes a concrete example that illustrates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., to delete a device). This is clear and helpful, though it could go slightly further.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions the side effect of automatically removing all connected cables, which is a destructive side effect that an agent must know. It does not mention what happens if the device is not found or if deletion is irreversible, but for a simple delete operation, the main behavioral trait is disclosed adequately.
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?
The description is precisely two sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core action, and the second adds a critical side effect. Every word is purposeful, and the most important information is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness.
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?
For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and side effect. It doesn't detail error handling or return values, but given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is sufficient. It could mention irreversibility explicitly, but that is implied by 'eliminar'.
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?
The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the phrase 'por su nombre' in the description clarifies that the single parameter 'nombre' is the device's name used to locate and delete it. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Nombre' title. Although it doesn't specify exact name format or case sensitivity, it fully explains the parameter's role in the operation.
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 states a specific verb (Elimina = deletes), the resource (un dispositivo del canvas de Packet Tracer), and the identifying attribute (por su nombre). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like eliminar_conexion (delete connection) and limpiar_topologia (clear entire topology), which are different operations. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when you need to remove a device and its connected cables. It explicitly states the cascading effect on cables, which signals to the agent that this is the tool for device removal (as opposed to eliminar_conexion for just a cable). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it, but the purpose is so clear that the usage context is well understood.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are None, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It succeeds by disclosing the mutation (module swap) and its consequence (loss of the FastEthernet0 port) plus the timing constraint. It falls short of a 5 by not stating whether the change is reversible or what happens when called on an already-wireless/non-endpoint device.
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?
Purpose and the consequence (losing FastEthernet0) are front-loaded in the first paragraph, with the when-not rule and flow following logically. The 4-step flow is somewhat verbose but earns its place as concrete usage guidance. A tight, well-ordered description with minimal waste.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, it covers the what, why, when-not, ordering constraint, prerequisites (by referencing crear_dispositivo), and follow-up steps. The only gaps are error cases and reversibility, which keep it from being fully complete, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 for the sole parameter 'dispositivo', the description compensates by demonstrating usage in the example flow (instalar_tarjeta_wifi('LAPTOP1')). It implies the parameter must be an existing endpoint created via crear_dispositivo but never states that constraint explicitly, so it does not fully close the coverage 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('changes the Ethernet module of an endpoint for a wireless card') and explains the underlying rationale (no radio, cannot associate with any SSID otherwise). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like configurar_wifi, which configures but cannot add radio capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when NOT to use it (tablets and smartphones are already wireless from factory), an ordering constraint (must be done BEFORE cabling because the device loses FastEthernet0), and a full numbered flow placing it in sequence among sibling tools like crear_dispositivo and configurar_wifi. Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states that the tool queries Packet Tracer, reflects installed hardware, and reports which interfaces are free or cabled. It doesn't mention error behavior or explicitly say it's non-modifying, but the verb 'Lista' and the nature of the tool make this clear.
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?
The description is efficient and well-organized: purpose first, then hardware-reflection rationale, then a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, hardware dependency, result content, and a use case. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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?
The schema only says 'Nombre' with 0% coverage, but the description provides a precise example (obtener_puertos_dispositivo('R1')) that clarifies the parameter is the device name. This adds the needed meaning that the schema alone lacks.
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 identifies the tool as listing the REAL interfaces of a device and their cable status, with the distinction that it reflects installed hardware. It differentiates itself from generic device-listing tools by emphasizing hardware reflection and its purpose for connection decisions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the main use case: it's the reliable way to know which interface to use in conectar_dispositivos(). It gives clear context without naming other alternatives explicitly, but the reference to conectar_dispositivos is practical and concrete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states it checks three things and reports what's missing, implying a read-only diagnostic action. However, it does not explicitly claim 'does not modify anything,' which would be ideal for a diagnostic tool; the non-destructive nature is implied rather than stated.
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 starts with a clear purpose, then usage, then a numbered list of the three checks. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main diagnostic statement. The list adds necessary detail, but it could be slightly tighter by combining the third point with the second or trimming extra words.
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?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by the context signal), the description covers the essential usage guidance and the scope of checks. It could benefit from explicitly stating what the output looks like (e.g., a report), but the output schema presumably covers that. The definition is complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. This is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnostica') and enumerates the three system components it checks (Bridge FastAPI, Loop JS, canvas state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnosticar_red, which focuses on network diagnostics rather than environment readiness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'Úsala SIEMPRE al principio de una sesión' and also when a command doesn't seem to take effect on the canvas. This gives unambiguous when-to-use guidance without needing to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it reveals that Packet Tracer silently fails (no creation and no error) if the model name doesn't match, describes auto-positioning by type, requires unique names, and clarifies that the tool only places an icon with no connectivity. These are high-value, non-obvious behaviors that annotations could not have supplied.
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 long, but nearly every line earns its place given the tool's complexity: a large valid-catalog list, positioning rules, naming constraint, and two critical prerequisites. It is well organized with headers, bullets, and a bolded IMPORTANTE section, and it front-loads the purpose. The only minor redundancy is that the catalog partially overlaps the input-schema enum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it defines valid inputs, exact-match failure semantics, optional coordinate behavior, naming uniqueness, and the required follow-up actions (conectar_dispositivos, agregar_modulo_router). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates for all four parameters: modelo is explained via the organized catalog plus the exact-match rule, x/y are documented as optional with type-dependent auto-positioning, and nombre is constrained to be unique in the topology. It adds substantial semantics that the bare schema (types and an enum) does not convey.
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?
States a clear verb-resource pair: 'Crea un dispositivo de red en Cisco Packet Tracer'. The description also explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by declaring that it 'solo coloca el icono en el canvas' and that connectivity is handled by a separate tool, so an agent can tell it apart from conectar_dispositivos or configurar_dispositivo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit workflow: create all devices first, then call conectar_dispositivos(), and call agregar_modulo_router for WAN serial modules before cabling. It also states when the tool is not sufficient (no connectivity without cables). However, it does not contrast against similar creation-like siblings such as crear_router_maestro, leaving a small ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool CONFIRMA el resultado: responde [OK] si Packet Tracer creó el cable de verdad, y [ERROR] con causas probables. It also reveals the prerequisite for serial cables (WIC-2T module) and that devices cannot communicate without cables. This goes beyond basic functional description to actual behavioral guarantees and side conditions.
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 long but densely informative, with clear section headers (FLUJO OBLIGATORIO, Interfaces comunes, Cables disponibles, CABLE SERIAL, Orden de operaciones, Ejemplos). Every section adds operational value. It is front-loaded with the mandatory flow, which is the most critical use constraint. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating that serial requires WIC-2T) is acceptable given the importance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required, 9 cable types, device interfaces, serial prerequisites), the description covers all necessary context: when to call it, how to determine interfaces, cable selection guidance, serial module requirement, and example invocations. The output schema (though not shown) is referenced via the [OK]/[ERROR] confirmation behavior, so no missing return-value details are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains device1/device2 implicitly through examples, lists all interface options per device model, and elaborates each cable type with its use cases and constraints. It even specifies the serial requirement for the tipo_cable parameter. The parameter semantics are fully documented.
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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Conecta dos dispositivos en Packet Tracer con un cable.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling conectar_router_a_pc by being the generic version, and from configuration tools by focusing solely on physical wiring. It also lists cable types and interface examples, further clarifying its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'FLUJO OBLIGATORIO: Siempre llama esta función después de crear_dispositivo().' It states a condition for using it (only after creating devices), recommends obtener_puertos_dispositivo() if interfaces are unknown, and provides a step-by-step order of operations. It also names the alternative for serial (agregar_modulo_router) and when not to use it (without WIC-2T).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It enumerates the specific failure types it detects (e.g., 'dispositivos sin ningún cable conectado', 'interfaces con IP pero sin cable'), states what it cannot see, and clarifies the interpretative caveat ('Que no reporte fallos no garantiza conectividad; que reporte uno sí garantiza que algo está mal'). This is comprehensive and disambiguating.
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?
The description is well-structured and efficient. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a bulleted list of detected issues, and a clear limitation section. Every sentence contributes critical information, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use it, what it detects, what it cannot detect, and how to interpret results. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to decide to call it or understand its behavior.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't. Any added meaning would be redundant. A score of 4 reflects that the lack of parameters means nothing is missing.
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 states a clear verb ('Audita'), a specific resource ('la red construida en Packet Tracer'), and the exact purpose ('señala por qué NO funcionaría'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming it detects failures that other tools don't see because they only confirm command execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('Llámala SIEMPRE al terminar de construir o modificar una topología, antes de decirle al usuario que está lista'), and provides exclusions and limitations ('NO puede ver: subinterfaces 802.1Q, VLANs, tablas de routing ni el resultado de un ping'). This tells an agent exactly when to use it and what to expect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Packet-Tracer-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cvz-dev/Packet-Tracer-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cvz-dev/Packet-Tracer-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Packet-Tracer-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cvz-dev/Packet-Tracer-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cvz-dev/Packet-Tracer-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cvz-dev/Packet-Tracer-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server