Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ptv_applyCampusIosConfig

Generate and apply a complete campus IOS configuration set to your Packet Tracer network. Configure routing, DHCP, NAT, and ACLs with one click.

Instructions

One-click generation and application of the complete campus IOS configuration set. Requires the Packet Tracer bridge to be connected.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ptv_applyCampusIosConfig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`prefix`	No
`routingProtocol`	No	ospf
`dhcpMode`	No	ios
`includeNatPat`	No
`includeAcl`	No
`writeMemory`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should carry more behavioral info. It states 'generation and application' implying configuration changes, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing configs), safety, reversibility, or that it may be destructive. Lacks detail on what 'apply' entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only one sentence, but it is under-specified. It lacks structured details about parameters and behavior. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the config set contains, the role of each parameter, the generation vs. application process, or expected outcomes. Incomplete for a production tool.

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%, yet the description provides zero explanation for the 6 parameters. No hints on what prefix, routingProtocol, dhcpMode, etc., control. The agent must guess from names and enums, which is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it does 'one-click generation and application of the complete campus IOS configuration set', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ptv_generateCampusIosConfig (generate only) and ptv_applyIosConfigSet (apply only), but does not explicitly mention these alternatives.

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?

Only mentions a prerequisite (Packet Tracer bridge connection). No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no context on when not to use it, and no mention of typical use cases or alternatives.

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