netmiko-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.5
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions: inventory listing, command execution, output reading, policy inspection, and audit queries. The only mild overlap is among get_metadata, health_check, and get_command_policy, which all report server/configuration state, though their descriptions route them to different use cases.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_devices, send_show_command, read_device_output, query_audit_trail. The single deviation is health_check, which uses a noun compound instead of check_health, but the overall style remains predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well-scoped for a network device management server: metadata, health, policy, inventory discovery, single-device and group command execution, output listing/reading, and audit trail access each earn their place. No tool feels redundant or missing at this level of granularity.
Completeness5/5
Within its read-only show-command domain, the toolset is complete: inventory discovery, policy enforcement, command execution, output persistence/retrieval, and audit history are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends, and the lack of configuration-change tools is consistent with the server's stated read-only command policy.
Average 4.6/5 across 9 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes what the tool does (lists files), how outputs are generated (saved when save_output=True or threshold exceeded), and implies reading is a separate step. There are no contradictions, and for a listing tool this level of transparency is adequate.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, uses an IMPORTANT callout for critical workflow instruction, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, fully described in schema), the presence of an output schema, and clear context about when outputs exist and how to proceed after listing, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without confusion.
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 coverage is 100%—the single parameter device_or_group is fully described in the schema. The description repeats 'for a device, group, or all devices' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'List the output files already saved on disk for a device, group, or all devices.' This provides a specific verb (List) and resource (output files) with clear scope options, distinguishing it effectively from sibling tools like netmiko.read_device_output which reads files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: 'If the user message involves network devices, call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST.' It also explains the source of outputs ('save_output=True or exceeded save_threshold') and directs the agent to netmiko.read_device_output for reading. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its place in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the pagination mechanism: response header with line range and total line count, continuation hint for next offset, and a warning about premature totals. This is relevant behavioral information beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is concise at 4 sentences, with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bolded 'IMPORTANT' warning. No redundant phrasing; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the pagination behavior and provides a critical prerequisite (get_metadata). It does not explicitly mention error handling or file existence, but the output schema likely covers return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination behavior (continuation hint) which helps the agent understand how to use the offset and limit parameters effectively. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Read a previously saved output file for one device, with pagination.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_show_command (which sends commands) and list_device_outputs (which lists files).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST when the user message involves network devices. Also provides guidance on pagination (do not report total based on incomplete pages). Does not explicitly mention alternatives for when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly states the operation is a list (read-only) and that it operates 'without credentials,' which is a notable behavioral trait. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other potential behaviors, but the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.
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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a short IMPORTANT note. Information is front-loaded: the essential action comes first, followed by critical usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and no annotations needed for a read-only list), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral trait (without credentials), and relationship to sibling tools. The output format is covered by the output schema, so no further detail is needed.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('discover exact device names') but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema's description already provides ('all, a group name, or a device name'). The emphasis on using exact names is helpful context but not additional parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool lists devices from the inventory without credentials, with a specific purpose to discover exact device names. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that device names are the only handle other tools accept, and it notes the IMPORTANT prerequisite to call netmiko.get_metadata first.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to discover exact device names before running a command' and 'Device names are the only handle the other tools accept — never pass an IP address or a hostname you inferred.' The IMPORTANT instruction to call netmiko.get_metadata first for network-related messages further clarifies when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks the MCP server (not devices or inventory), and documents the return fields including special behavior when command_policy is 'fallback' (warning field, suggesting the agent report it). It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but for a health-check tool with no destructive potential, these are less critical.
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?
The description is well-structured with a brief header, an important usage note, a clear exclusion, and a detailed return format. It is not overly long, but the return section could be slightly more concise (e.g., listing the fields without the 'Returns:' prefix). Overall, it earns its sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which partially covers the return format), the description provides complete context: what the tool checks, what it doesn't check, when to call an alternative first, and the exact return structure with special behavior. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema provides full coverage (100%) of the empty parameter set. The description adds no parameter-level details because there are none, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter context and the rich return value description that compensates slightly.
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 clearly states the tool checks 'whether the Netmiko MCP server itself is responsive and correctly configured.' It distinguishes itself from tools that check network devices or inventory backend reachability by explicitly contrasting with those cases, and provides a language example ('¿Está arriba el router X?') to reinforce the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells the agent to call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST if the user message involves network devices, and clearly states what this tool is NOT for (network device checks, inventory backend reachability). It also explains when to use alternatives like netmiko.send_show_command, providing explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the read-only nature (list operation) and the return format (JSON with groups and count), and warns against inventing group names. It does not mention error handling or performance, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bolded IMPORTANT note, a usage tip, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, an output schema, and a straightforward list operation, the description fully covers usage, prerequisites, and return value. It also clarifies its role in relation to send_show_command_to_group, making it complete in context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so no param info is needed. The description does not add parameter details because there are none; baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. The output schema already covers the return structure, and the description reinforces it.
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 clearly states 'List every device group defined in the inventory' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_devices and send_show_command_to_group by focusing on groups, and the tool's role 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is given: 'call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST' for network devices, and 'Call this before assuming a group name exists — never invent one.' This sets clear prerequisites and usage timing, effectively preventing misuse without overcomplicating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: it only reads records, never connects to devices, filters combine with AND, audit trail rotates and reads available files, response fields indicate coverage and pagination, and it records its own invocations which are hidden by default. No contradictions.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: examples of use, filtering rules, disk rotation caveats, response field semantics, and self-auditing behavior. No wasted words; the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, filtering, pagination, audit trail rotation, and self-recording. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional help.
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 already describes all 14 parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the combined-AND filtering strategy, pagination behavior (matched vs. returned), and the context for include_audit_queries. This is meaningful but not extensive, so a 4 is warranted.
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 clearly states the tool reads the audit trail of past activity, with examples of questions it answers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_show_command and read_device_output by explicitly noting it never opens a connection or returns device output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives strong guidance on when to use the tool (for past activity, not current state) and how to translate user questions into arguments. It instructs to avoid requesting all records and sifting through them. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to use instead, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 extensively discloses behavior: how the policy lists are read (deny wins, no abbreviations, glob rules), what the return JSON contains, and the meaning of `policy_source` values. This is complete and transparent.
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?
The description is long but well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, though some content (e.g., repeated warnings about not listing commands not in the allow list) could be slightly more concise. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema provided in structured form), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the return structure, usage interpretation, edge cases (empty lists, fallback warning), and even includes guidance on how to handle the results. No gaps remain.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-level semantics because there are none. Per the guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not need to compensate further.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the commands this server will accept, and where that policy comes from.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (commands policy), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netmiko.send_show_command by focusing on policy rather than executing commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS AFTER A REFUSAL, BEFORE RETRYING.' It also explains what not to do (don't guess or abbreviate) and gives context for alternative scenarios ('when the user asks what they can run'). This is thorough and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool does not reach any network device, explains the returned fields (version, author, inventory, command_policy, etc.), and details the meaning of the command_policy field including the warning behavior. This fully compensates for missing annotations.
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?
The description is longer than average but each sentence adds essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and mandatory call order, then provides behavioral details and return format. While slightly verbose, the structure is logical and the length is justified by the complexity of guidance needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, the presence of an output schema (context signals), and zero parameters, the description fully covers all necessary aspects. It explains when to call, what it returns, the significance of inventory freshness, the command_policy states, and how to handle warnings. There is no missing information for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to explain parameters. It adds value by detailing the output fields and their significance, which is a bonus. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 clearly states 'Return authoritative metadata about the Netmiko MCP server and its inventory.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netmiko.health_check (server aliveness) and netmiko.send_show_command (device queries) by explaining what it does not do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly demands: 'MANDATORY — call this tool FIRST on EVERY user message that mentions, asks about, or relates to network devices...' It provides concrete context for when to use it (first call for device-related queries) and when not to (e.g., 'This tool does NOT reach any network device. For "is the MCP alive" call netmiko.health_check'). This is exemplary usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the command is validated against an allow/deny list, that rejections are expected and not a bug, that syntax is per-platform across 177 base device types, and that probes are audited. This covers behavioral traits beyond the basic function.
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?
The description is fairly long but well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by an important prerequisite note, rejection behavior, and platform syntax warnings. Every section earns its place given the complexity, though it could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 177 device types, output schema exists), the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, platform variations, rejection handling, and flag usage. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. No gaps in essential context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the need for full, un-abbreviated commands and exact device names, and by providing context about platform-specific syntax. While much is already in the schema, the additional warnings about abbreviations and device type checking justify a 4.
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 explicitly states 'Connect to one network device over SSH and run a single show command', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netmiko.send_show_command_to_group and netmiko.list_devices by focusing on a single device and show command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST for network device queries, check device_type with netmiko.list_devices first, and warns against probing variants or retrying rejected commands. It explicitly states that rejections are not bugs and must be reported to the user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses concurrent execution, pre-validation of commands, per-device failure reporting, and the platform heterogeneity risk. No contradictions with structured data.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections, important warnings highlighted, and logical flow. Slightly lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose; could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all critical aspects: concurrent execution, validation, partial failure reporting, platform heterogeneity, and prerequisites. Output schema exists so return values are not needed. Sufficient for a complex tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that the command is validated once before connections and warns about platform mixing for the 'command' parameter. It also reinforces the meaning of 'device_or_group' as linking to list_groups/list_devices.
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 clearly states 'Run the same show command concurrently on every device of a group.' It specifies the verb (run), resource (show command), and scope (concurrently on every device of a group). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'netmiko.send_show_command' which targets a single device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST when involving network devices, and warns against using with heterogeneous groups—directing to use send_show_command per platform instead. Also explains validation behavior and partial failure handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![netmiko-sot_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escrimaglia/netmiko-sot_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escrimaglia/netmiko-sot_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![netmiko-sot_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escrimaglia/netmiko-sot_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escrimaglia/netmiko-sot_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/escrimaglia/netmiko-sot_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server