Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ptv_runShowCommands

Issue show commands to a single IOS device and receive command-log confirmation. Useful for retrieving device status and configuration in Packet Tracer simulations.

Instructions

Issue show commands to one IOS device and return command-log confirmation. Packet Tracer does not guarantee full show-output parsing.

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": {
      "deviceName": "<deviceName>",
      "commands": "<commands>"
    },
    "name": "ptv_runShowCommands"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deviceName`	Yes
`commands`	Yes
`logLimit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a limitation ('Packet Tracer does not guarantee full show-output parsing') and mentions returning a confirmation log, but omits side effects, destructive potential, or permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 key action and outcome. No extraneous words, highly 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?

No output schema exists. The description only mentions 'command-log confirmation' without specifics on structure, error handling, or pagination. For a command-issuing tool to a network device, this is insufficient context to understand the full interaction.

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%. The description adds context for deviceName and commands ('issue show commands to one IOS device'), but does not explain logLimit (default 120). With 3 parameters, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 issues show commands to a single IOS device and returns command-log confirmation. It distinguishes from siblings like ptv_configureIos (config commands) and ptv_getCommandLog (retrieve logs), giving a specific verb and resource.

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 this tool is for show commands, not configuration, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, missing a clear usage boundary.

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