NetMap — Network Diagram MCP

by den-indance

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

map_list_sheets

Retrieve all network diagram sheets with their ID, name, creation and update timestamps, and active status.

Instructions

List all sheets with their id, name, createdAt, updatedAt and which is active.

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": "map_list_sheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the return fields and implies read-only behavior through 'List', but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or describe pagination/scope limitations beyond 'all sheets'. The field enumeration adds value but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the scope ('all sheets') and the exact fields returned. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of ordering or whether 'active' is a filter or just a field, but the description is largely complete for basic use.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are no parameters to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'sheets' and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, createdAt, updatedAt, active status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, switch, rename, or delete sheets.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like map_get_sheet_data or map_switch_sheet. Usage context is implied by the return type (an overview of all sheets), but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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