Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ptv_injectFault

Inject built-in faults like missing VLAN, OSPF mismatch, or ACL misconfigurations into Packet Tracer simulations to test network troubleshooting skills.

Instructions

Generate or apply a built-in fault scenario, such as missing trunk VLAN, OSPF area mismatch, missing static route, overblocking ACL, or broken NAT outside marking.

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": {
      "faultId": "<faultId>"
    },
    "name": "ptv_injectFault"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`faultId`	Yes
`prefix`	No
`apply`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists possible fault scenarios but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies network state, requires permissions, or is reversible. The term 'inject' implies some system change, but no explicit disclosure.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes examples which aid understanding without being verbose. However, it could be restructured to include parameter details without increasing length.

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 three parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the output is, or provide any context about when to inject vs repair faults (sibling tool ptv_repairFault is present).

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (faultId, prefix, apply). The user has no guidance on what values faultId accepts, what prefix does, or what apply=true means. This is a critical 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 specifies the verb 'generate or apply' and the resource 'built-in fault scenario' with concrete examples like missing trunk VLAN, OSPF area mismatch, etc. It clearly differentiates from sibling tool ptv_repairFault, which is for repairing faults.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ptv_repairFault or when not to use it. The statement is purely functional without context for selection.

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