ENSP-MCP AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Save Config

save_config

Saves the running configuration on a specified Huawei eNSP device by handling Y/N prompts, accepting a default filename, and confirming completion via the console prompt.

Instructions

Save configuration, answering Y/N and accepting a default filename. Success requires a save completion message and final console prompt.

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>"
    },
    "name": "save_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses interactive behavior (answering Y/N prompts) and a success condition (save completion message and final console prompt), but omits whether this is a persistent write, whether it can overwrite configuration, and what permissions are needed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the phrasing around Y/N and default filename is somewhat terse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description gives some helpful success criteria but remains incomplete about what config is saved, whether the operation is persistent, and how the Y/N and filename interactions actually work.

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 the single parameter device_ip is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that and introduces 'default filename' without clarifying that it is not a parameter.

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 clear verb+resource ('Save configuration') and adds interaction details, but does not differentiate from config-related siblings such as push_config or mcp_push_config.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like push_config. Usage is only implied by the name and the brief save description.

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