Packet Tracer Visual MCP

by lyf94697-droid

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

ptv_applyIosConfigSet

Apply a set of IOS configurations to specific devices using device names and command lists.

Instructions

Apply an arbitrary IOS config set made of deviceName plus commands entries.

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": {
      "configs": "<configs>"
    },
    "name": "ptv_applyIosConfigSet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`configs`	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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing config, requires specific permissions, or is destructive. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

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 a single concise sentence (12 words) that gets straight to the point. It could be slightly more structured, but it is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and the complexity of the tool (applying config to devices), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, immediate effects, or success verification.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description loosely maps to the parameters by mentioning 'deviceName plus commands entries'. However, it does not explain the structure of 'commands' (e.g., valid IOS commands) or that it can be a string or array, missing the opportunity to add value beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Apply' and the resource 'IOS config set', and specifies that it is composed of 'deviceName plus commands entries'. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like 'ptv_applyCampusIosConfig' which likely applies a pre-defined config.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ptv_applyCampusIosConfig', 'ptv_configureIos'). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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