Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ENSP-MCP AI

ENSP-MCP AI

by dawnight0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Ping From Device

ping_from_device

Run a ping from a Huawei eNSP device to a target IP to check reachability, with optional source IP and packet count.

Instructions

Run ping from 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>",
      "target_ip": "<target_ip>"
    },
    "name": "ping_from_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoPing count
device_ipYesDevice name or IP
source_ipNoOptional source IP
target_ipYesPing target IP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether the call blocks for the duration of the ping, what happens on timeout, whether it needs SSH/credentials, or what the output looks like. 'Run ping' implies a network operation but discloses no operational traits.

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 the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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?

A four-parameter network-diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain behavior around blocking, failure modes, and result shape. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it.

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%, so each of the four parameters (device_ip, target_ip, count, source_ip) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (ping) and resource (from a device), which is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings like push_config or get_running_config. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling traceroute_from_device.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus traceroute_from_device, execute_cli, or health_check, and no mention of prerequisites such as reachability or permissions. The agent gets no context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools