Retrieve port traffic graphs for a server by specifying the server ID, physical switch port, and time period (day, month, or year) to view historical load data.
Графики загрузки порта за период (net/show_cacti): день/месяц/год.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID сервера | |
| port | Yes | Физический порт свитча | |
| graph | Yes | 1 — день, 2 — месяц, 3 — год |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=trueo, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the data source context ('net/show_cacti') and the time-period variants, but does not disclose what the returned graphs look like (e.g., image URLs, binary data, or a list). No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single concise Russian phrase conveys the tool's purpose and period options with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format of the graphs, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to consume the response.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description merely restates the graph parameter's day/month/year mapping without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource (port) and data type (load graphs over a period), and lists the day/month/year variants. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the action, but it is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings like port_on/off or get_network_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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or sibling references are provided. The usage context is only implied: use it when port load graphs are needed. This is minimal viable information but lacks explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.