ENSP-MCP AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Traceroute From Device

traceroute_from_device

Run traceroute from a specified Huawei eNSP device to a target IP, optionally using a source IP, to trace packet paths and diagnose connectivity.

Instructions

Run traceroute 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": "traceroute_from_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device_ip`	Yes	Device name or IP
`source_ip`	No	Optional source IP
`target_ip`	Yes	Traceroute target IP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no timeout/latency characteristics, no indication of whether the call is blocking, no note on what the hop-by-hop output contains, and no error behavior for unreachable devices. 'Run traceroute' only restates the operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably over-terse for a diagnostic tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter detail in the description, an agent cannot tell what the call returns (hop list, latency, failure modes) or how long it may block. For a network operation with real latency, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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% — device_ip, source_ip, and target_ip are each documented in the schema with required/optional status. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Run traceroute from a device'), and the network-diagnostic intent is immediately clear, especially against the analogous sibling ping_from_device. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling or from execute_cli, which could also run a traceroute, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus ping_from_device, health_check, or execute_cli, and no mention of prerequisites such as device reachability or required permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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