Fetch network topology details by UUID, including node lists, link metrics, and graph connections, to map and monitor OpenWISP network infrastructure.
[Category: Network Topology] Retrieve network topology details including node list, link metrics, and graph connections. (HTTP GET /api/v1/network-topology/topology/{id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Topology UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation, and enumerates returned content, but it omits permissions, error behavior for invalid IDs, and pagination details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One efficiently front-loaded sentence, with category and endpoint metadata compactly placed. No wasted language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple ID-based read with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description does enough by enumerating the major returned sections. It stops short of covering error or edge behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single id parameter is fully documented as a Topology UUID. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: retrieves network topology details including node list, link metrics, and graph connections. It clearly differs from list_topologies by being an ID-based get, but it does not explicitly name or route against siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_topologies, list_nodes, or list_links. Usage is only implied by the get-style name and required ID parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.