Retrieve day, month, or year port utilization graphs for a specific server's physical switch port.
Port utilization graphs for a period (net/show_cacti): day/month/year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Server ID | |
| port | Yes | Physical switch port | |
| graph | Yes | 1 — day, 2 — month, 3 — year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Input schema / properties / graph / descriptionPrevious value: -"1 — день, 2 — месяц, 3 — год"New value: +"1 — day, 2 — month, 3 — year"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID сервера"New value: +"Server ID"Input schema / properties / port / descriptionPrevious value: -"Физический порт свитча"New value: +"Physical switch port"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a cryptic source reference ('net/show_cacti') and the period granularity, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral trait beyond what annotations imply.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs purpose, source hint, and period options efficiently.
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 full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema, it could say more about what the returned graphs actually contain or how to interpret them.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the day/month/year options without adding syntax or meaning beyond the schema's 'graph' description.
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 states the resource clearly: port utilization graphs for a time period, with day/month/year options. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's function.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_network_status or get_power_status. It merely enumerates the period options, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.