Packet Tracer Visual MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ptv_validateCampusFast

Validate campus network topology: plan shape, build/apply results, key device/link checks, and optional canvas snapshot, all without heavy show commands.

Instructions

Run a speed-preserving campus validation: plan shape, build/apply results, one optional canvas snapshot, and key-device/link checks. It does not run heavy show commands.

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_validateCampusFast"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	No
`originX`	No
`originY`	No
`scale`	No
`checkCanvas`	No
`plan`	No
`buildResult`	No
`applyResult`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool does not run heavy show commands, indicating it is lightweight, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or whether operations are read-only or mutating.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the key components in two sentences, though a bulleted list could improve scannability.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, parameter effects, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. The 8 parameters, including nested objects like plan and buildResult, remain completely opaque, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 runs a 'speed-preserving campus validation' and lists specific components (plan shape, build/apply results, canvas snapshot, key-device/link checks), distinguishing it from siblings like ptv_runShowCommands and ptv_generateCampusValidationPlan.

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 for fast validation by noting it does not run heavy show commands, providing context for when to choose this tool over heavier alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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