Read per-port admin state, link, speed, flow control, LAG, name, and protection from TP-Link Easy Smart switches without mutating. Filter to live links with only_linked=true.
Read-only: per-port admin state, link, configured/actual speed, flow control, LAG id, friendly name and whether the port is protected. Set only_linked=true to list only ports with a live link. Does not mutate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| only_linked | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well for the safety profile: 'Read-only' and 'Does not mutate' explicitly declare the operation is non-destructive. It also discloses what the call returns. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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, zero filler. The read-only nature and returned fields are front-loaded, and the only_linked hint follows logically after the reader knows what a port record contains.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter: it declares the operation non-mutating and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows both the safety profile and the response shape. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Set only_linked=true to list only ports with a live link' fully explains the flag's effect. It does not restate the default of false, a minor omission.
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 specific verb and resource (read per-port state) and enumerates the exact fields returned: admin state, link, configured/actual speed, flow control, LAG id, friendly name, protection status. That field list implicitly separates it from siblings like switch_get_port_stats and switch_get_vlans, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 tells you to set only_linked=true for a live-link filter, but gives no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over switch_get_port_stats, switch_get_poe, or switch_get_vlans. Usage is only implied by the field list, with no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.