ENSP-MCP AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Execute Cli

execute_cli

Runs a single display or query CLI command on a Huawei eNSP device by IP to inspect network status and troubleshoot configurations.

Instructions

Execute a single display/query command on a device.

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": {
      "device_ip": "<device_ip>",
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "execute_cli"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command`	Yes	CLI command
`device_ip`	Yes	Device name or IP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether the command is restricted to non-mutating queries, what happens on an invalid or config-level command, timeout behavior, or how large output is handled — significant gaps for a tool that shells a CLI to a remote 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint ('single', 'display/query') comes first. It is arguably too terse for a command-execution tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the result shape, error signaling, or safety constraints for an arbitrary CLI execution tool. It supplies none of these, leaving the agent to guess at failure modes and output characteristics.

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 100% and both parameters (command, device_ip) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or device-addressing detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (a single display/query CLI command on a device), which the sibling list otherwise leaves ambiguous (mcp_execute, push_config). It does not name the sibling it is distinguished from, but the 'display/query' qualifier implicitly separates it from config-push tools.

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?

'Single' and 'display/query' imply read-only, one-command-at-a-time usage, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus mcp_execute or get_running_config are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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