Packet Tracer Visual MCP

by lyf94697-droid

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

ptv_addDevice

Add a network device to a Packet Tracer simulation at specified X and Y coordinates.

Instructions

Add one Packet Tracer device at a specific workspace coordinate.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "model": "<model>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "ptv_addDevice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., overwriting existing device), authentication requirements, or error conditions. Only states what it does, not behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words, highly concise and front-loaded with key action and object. However, it sacrifices necessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and 4 required parameters, description is grossly incomplete. Does not specify return value, error handling, or constraints like coordinate bounds.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Does not explain valid model values, coordinate units (pixels? meters?), or naming conventions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Add', resource 'Packet Tracer device', and specificity 'one at specific workspace coordinate'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ptv_addDevicesTimeline which adds multiple devices over time.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as ptv_addDevicesTimeline or ptv_addLink. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.