Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Packet Tracer Visual MCP

by lyf94697-droid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ptv_generateCampusValidationPlan

Generate a campus validation plan to verify network configurations. Use fast mode to skip show commands, or standard/strict for detailed IOS checks.

Instructions

Generate a campus validation plan. Default validationMode is fast, which avoids show-command sweeps. Use standard or strict only when slower IOS command checks are acceptable.

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_generateCampusValidationPlan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefixNo
routingProtocolNoospf
dhcpModeNoios
includeNatPatNo
includeAclNo
validationModeNofast

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the default mode and behavior difference for validation modes. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the main action and the most important parameter guidance. No wasted words.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter meanings, output format, or how it fits into the workflow of related tools.

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%, and the description only implicitly explains one parameter (validationMode) by mentioning its default and trade-offs. The other five parameters (prefix, routingProtocol, dhcpMode, includeNatPat, includeAcl) are left completely unexplained.

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 'Generate a campus validation plan' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ptv_validateCampusFast, which may perform a similar function.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives guidance on when to use different validationMode values ('fast' default vs 'standard/strict'), but does not explain when to use this tool compared to other validation or generation tools among the siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools