ENSP-MCP AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Discover Topology

discover_topology

Parse an eNSP .topo file or summarize the uploaded topology.json snapshot to identify network devices, links, and layout for diagnostics and configuration.

Instructions

Parse an eNSP .topo file, or summarize the current uploaded topology.json from the web UI when given that JSON path.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes	Full path to a .topo file, or to the uploaded topology.json snapshot

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 implies read-only parsing/summarization but does not state permissions, side effects, error behavior, or output shape, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Both operational modes are stated efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool the description is adequate for selection and invocation, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what parsing returns or what the summary contains. That leaves the return behavior underspecified.

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 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics by mapping the file_path value type to different behavior: .topo files are parsed, while the uploaded topology.json is summarized.

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 names specific verbs and resources: parsing an eNSP .topo file or summarizing a topology.json snapshot. It clearly distinguishes the two supported input modes, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like auto_discover or find_topo_files.

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?

It clearly states the condition for each mode: use .topo parsing when given a .topo file, and summarize when given the uploaded topology.json path. It does not mention when to prefer this over related discovery tools, but the usage context is still clear.

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