一个模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现，通过 POX SDN 控制器提供网络控制和管理功能。该服务器通过 POX 的模块化架构支持基于 Python 的网络编程、OpenFlow 设备管理和自动化网络分析。非常适合教育环境、网络原型设计和 SDN 研究。
Related MCP server: F5 MCP Server
服务器公开两个动态资源：
pox://network-config ：全面的 POX 控制器配置备忘录
跟踪活动的 POX 组件及其配置
记录网络拓扑和流向规则
维护已发现的网络洞察
pox://topology ：实时网络拓扑视图
显示活动的 OpenFlow 数据路径（交换机）
地图主机位置和连接
显示链接状态和端口映射
服务器提供了三种专门的提示：
pox-network-manager ：POX 控制器管理的交互式提示
必需参数： topic - 要关注的网络控制方面
帮助配置 POX 组件和模块
指导网络政策实施
与网络配置备忘录集成
simple-hub ：使用 POX 实现的基本 L2 hub
必需参数： dpid - 数据路径标识符
演示 POX 的事件驱动编程
显示基本的数据包处理和泛洪
解释 POX 的核心机制
learning-switch ：L2 学习开关实现
必需参数： dpid - 数据路径标识符
展示 POX 的表管理
实现MAC学习和转发
演示 POX 的数据包处理能力
该服务器提供五种核心工具：
get_switches
列出所有连接的 OpenFlow 数据路径
无需输入
返回：活动 POX 控制开关阵列
包括连接状态和功能
get_switch_desc
获取详细的数据路径信息
输入：
dpid （字符串）：数据路径标识符
返回：POX 管理交换机的详细信息和功能
get_flow_stats
检索 POX 流量统计数据
输入：
dpid （字符串）：数据路径标识符
match （对象，可选）：POX 匹配结构
table_id （字符串，可选）：OpenFlow 表 ID
out_port （字符串，可选）：输出端口过滤器
返回：POX 流量统计数据，包括数据包计数
set_table
配置 POX 流表
输入：
dpid （字符串）：数据路径标识符
flows （数组）：POX 流规范
返回：流表更新确认
append_insight
将网络洞察添加到 POX 配置备忘录
输入：
insight （字符串）：网络观察或分析
返回：Insight 添加确认
更新 pox://network-config 资源
{
"mcpServers": {
"pox": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"parent_of_servers_repo/servers/src/mcp_server_pox",
"run",
"server.py"
],
"env": {
"POX_SERVER_URL": "http://localhost:8000"
}
}
}
}此 MCP 服务器采用 MIT 许可证。这意味着您可以自由使用、修改和分发该软件，但须遵守 MIT 许可证的条款和条件。更多详情，请参阅项目仓库中的 LICENSE 文件。
欢迎贡献代码！欢迎提交 Pull 请求、报告 Bug 或建议新功能。
Add a network insight to the configuration memo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| insight | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'Add' but omits details like idempotency, side effects, or whether insights are appended or overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose, so it's not perfect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover behavior and parameter details. It only covers purpose, leaving gaps in understanding post-conditions and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name 'insight' is vague; the description says 'network insight' but does not clarify format, constraints, or examples, failing to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a network insight' and the target 'configuration memo'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_flow_stats (retrieval) and set_table (setting table), as this is the only tool for appending insights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about scenarios like whether the memo must exist beforehand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get flow statistics from a switch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpid | Yes | ||
| match | No | ||
| table_id | No | ||
| out_port | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation ('Get') but does not mention if it is expensive, requires authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which might seem concise, but it fails to convey necessary information. It does not earn its place because it adds little value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or how to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to any of the 4 parameters (dpid, match, table_id, out_port). The agent receives no help understanding parameter roles beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get flow statistics from a switch' clearly states the action (get) and resource (flow statistics from a switch), distinguishing it from siblings like get_switch_desc or get_switches. However, it could be more specific about what statistics are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description lacks any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a specific switch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpid | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or data sensitivity. It implies a read operation but does not confirm safety or discuss response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not waste words but also does not provide rich detail. Acceptable for a simple tool, but could be improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to specify what 'detailed information' encompasses or any return format. Sibling tools are not referenced to complete the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the 'dpid' parameter. It does not explain what 'dpid' represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific switch', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_switches' (likely for listing all switches). However, it could be more specific about what 'detailed information' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as comparing with 'get_switches' or 'get_flow_stats'. No preconditions or caveats are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a list of all connected OpenFlow switches
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description implies a safe read operation, but lacks details on potential failures (e.g., no connected switches) or rate limits. The transparency is adequate for a simple list tool 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no superfluous information, perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks return value details (e.g., structure of each switch), which is notable since there is no output schema. However, the tool's simplicity and zero parameters mitigate the gap somewhat.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the description adds no parameter details but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get a list') and the resource ('all connected OpenFlow switches'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_flow_stats or get_switch_desc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when detailed switch descriptions are needed via get_switch_desc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the flow table on a switch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpid | Yes | ||
| flows | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set' but doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., whether existing flows are overwritten), idempotency, authentication needs, or what happens to unmatched flows. This lack of transparency could lead to unintended consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices critical detail. While it avoids verbosity, it could include more essential information without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters (one complex), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not address input formats, behavioral effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to interpret correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'dpid' as a switch identifier and 'flows' as flow entries, but provides no format details (e.g., dpid syntax, flow object structure). The flows parameter is an array of objects with no defined properties, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'set' and the resource 'flow table on a switch', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform read or append operations. However, it lacks detail on the scope (e.g., whether it replaces all flows or merges), so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context or guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for initial configuration vs. incremental updates), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0append_insightget_flow_statsget_switch_descget_switchesset_tableEach tool targets a distinct operation: listing switches, getting switch details, getting flow stats, setting the flow table, and appending an insight. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (append_insight, get_*, set_table), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of OpenFlow switch management. The number falls within the ideal range and each tool provides necessary functionality.
The set covers basic operations like querying and setting but lacks tools for deleting or modifying flow rules, or managing switch connections, leaving notable gaps for full lifecycle management.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
The Google GKE MCP server is a managed Model Context Protocol server that provides AI applications with tools to manage Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) clusters and Kubernetes resources. It exposes a structured, discoverable interface that allows AI agents to interact with GKE and Kubernetes APIs, enabling them to inspect cluster configurations, retrieve Kubernetes resource YAMLs, monitor operations like cluster upgrades, diagnose issues, and optimize costs—all without needing to parse text output or use complex kubectl commands.
The Telnyx MCP server is an official implementation of the Model Context Protocol that enables AI clients (like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and OpenAI Agents) to interact with Telnyx's telephony, messaging, and AI assistant APIs. It provides comprehensive capabilities including making and managing phone calls, sending SMS/MMS messages, purchasing and configuring phone numbers, creating AI assistants with custom instructions, managing cloud storage buckets, scraping and embedding website content, and handling integration secrets. The server exists as both a local implementation and a remotely hosted version, allowing developers to integrate real-world communication infrastructure directly into AI applications.
The OpenMesh MCP Server provides decentralized, permissionless cloud infrastructure that integrates AI assistants with Web2 and Web3 applications without middlemen. It offers intelligent service discovery to identify MCP servers, acts as a universal proxy for routing requests to discovered services, implements performance optimization through usage feedback, and provides automatic fault tolerance with alternative services when servers become unavailable.
The BigQuery remote MCP server is a fully managed service that uses the Model Context Protocol to connect AI applications and LLMs to BigQuery data sources. It provides secure, standardized tools for AI agents to list datasets and tables, retrieve schemas, generate and execute SQL queries through natural language, and analyze data—enabling direct access to enterprise analytics data without requiring manual SQL coding.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/davidlin2k/pox-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
