Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ptv_generateCampusIosConfig

Generate a complete IOS configuration for a campus network, including routing protocol, DHCP pools, ACL templates, and NAT/PAT.

Instructions

Generate a complete IOS configuration set for the built-in campus topology. Supports routingProtocol static/rip/ospf/eigrp, IOS DHCP pools, ACL templates, and NAT/PAT.

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_generateCampusIosConfig"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behaviors. It mentions supported features but lacks details on side effects, output format, or prerequisites. It does not say whether it is a read-only operation or modifies state; generation typically returns config but is not explicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and key capabilities. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description covers main features but does not explain the 'prefix' parameter or the effect of 'writeMemory'. For a generation tool, more detail on the output (e.g., format, how to apply) would be helpful, but sibling tools handle application.

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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameter individually. It mentions routingProtocol, DHCP, ACL, and NAT/PAT, which correspond to parameters, but omits 'prefix' and 'writeMemory'. Parameter names are not explained, and defaults are not mentioned.

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?

The description clearly states it generates a complete IOS configuration set for the built-in campus topology, listing supported routing protocols and features. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ptv_generateIosTemplate or ptv_applyCampusIosConfig by specifying the target topology and completeness.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage: when generating a full config for the built-in campus topology with specific routing protocols, DHCP mode, etc. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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