find_topo_filesLocates topology files for eNSP network setups by first checking whether the web UI already uploaded topology.json, then searching a given directory for additional local .topo files when needed.
Check whether the web UI already uploaded topology.json, and only then search for extra local .topo files if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_dir | No | Optional search directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a non-obvious behavioral trait — search is gated on prior web UI upload state — but says nothing about read-only safety, what happens when topology.json is absent, or what the result set looks like.
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?
A single compact sentence with no padding, and the prerequisite check is front-loaded before the search action. The nested conditional makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.
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?
For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the lookup conditions but not the return shape (paths? parsed topology? empty result semantics). It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.
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 100%, with search_dir already documented as an optional search directory. The description adds no extra meaning about the directory (defaults, scope, recursion), so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a concrete action (check for the web-UI-uploaded topology.json, then search for local .topo files), so an agent can tell it is a topology file discovery tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like discover_topology or get_topology_context, and the conditional phrasing makes the headline purpose slightly murky.
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?
It gives an implicit condition for use ('only then search ... if needed'), which is more than nothing, but it never states when to prefer this over discover_topology or what to do if neither source exists. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.