ENSP-MCP AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Devices

list_devices

Retrieve a list of all registered eNSP simulated network devices to identify available targets for CLI commands, configuration, or diagnostics.

Instructions

List registered eNSP devices.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about whether the listing reflects a cached registry or queries live devices, whether authentication is required, or how large results are handled. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the key concept (registered devices) is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but there is no wasted text to cut.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least sketch what a listing contains (names, IDs, status, counts) and how it relates to discovery and registration tools. As written, the agent knows what the tool is called but not what it returns or when it beats its many siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 phrase 'List registered eNSP devices' gives a clear verb (list) and a specific resource (registered eNSP devices), and 'registered' hints at a managed inventory rather than a live scan. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like auto_discover, discover_topology, or sync_topology_devices, which an agent could easily confuse with a device listing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. The word 'registered' is the only implicit signal distinguishing this from discovery tools such as auto_discover, leaving the agent to guess which sibling to call.

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