get_running_configRetrieve a network device's running configuration, optionally filtered to a specific section, to inspect current settings and verify active device state.
Read the running configuration of a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Optional section filter | |
| device_ip | Yes | Device name or IP |
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 burden. 'Read' weakly implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the device must be registered first, output size/truncation for large configs, or rate limits. That is a substantial gap for a device-facing read.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what a running config read returns and any constraints, but it does not. An agent has no idea whether the result is truncated, paginated, or how the 'section' filter changes it.
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%, so device_ip and the optional 'section' filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or filtering semantics beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('running configuration of a device'), which an agent can distinguish from push_config or save_config. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings such as execute_cli or health_check, which also take a device and return device state.
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 versus alternatives like execute_cli or get_topology_context, and no prerequisites (reachability, credentials, device registration) are mentioned. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.