Read TP-Link switch port TX/RX good and bad packet counters for one port, a PORT_MAP name, or all ports with error_ports flagged. Non-mutating, for monitoring link health and errors.
Read-only: tx/rx good/bad packet counters. Pass a port number or a PORT_MAP name for one port, or omit it for all ports plus error_ports (any port with rx_bad+tx_bad > 0). Does not mutate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only', 'Does not mutate') and the derived semantics of error_ports (rx_bad+tx_bad > 0), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permission/auth requirements (relevant given sibling switch_login/switch_check_auth) and any error or rate-limit behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only safety statement, then the return content, then the argument contract. No filler; every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, argument contract, return content summary, and non-mutation. It is nearly complete, missing only auth/permission prerequisites that siblings imply may exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so well: it maps the anyOf integer|string|null to 'port number' / 'PORT_MAP name' / omit-for-all. The only gap is that 'PORT_MAP name' is not defined and its source (possibly switch_resolve_port) is left implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a precise verb+resource combination ('tx/rx good/bad packet counters' for switch ports) and defines the scope (one port vs. all ports plus error_ports). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like switch_get_ports, switch_get_poe, or switch_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to invoke it (pass a port number, a PORT_MAP name, or omit for all) and what the omission yields, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as switch_get_ports or switch_status. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.