Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ptv_getCampusPlan

Retrieve a built-in campus network demo plan showing device names, VLANs, links, service steps, and tests, all without launching Packet Tracer.

Instructions

Generate the built-in campus-network demo plan without touching Packet Tracer. Use this to preview device names, VLANs, links, service steps, and tests.

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_getCampusPlan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	No
`originX`	No
`originY`	No
`scale`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only preview operation ('without touching Packet Tracer') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the plan is cached or regenerated. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

Despite a clear purpose, the description lacks explanation of parameters and return values (no output schema). For a tool with 4 undocumented parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (prefix, originX, originY, scale) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. This is a significant gap.

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 the tool generates a built-in campus-network demo plan for previewing device names, VLANs, links, service steps, and tests. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('campus-network demo plan'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that add or configure devices.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to preview...' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings, which is a minor gap.

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