List physical or virtual links in an OpenWISP network topology with status to monitor connectivity. Filter by status or topology ID.
[Category: Network Topology] List physical or virtual links between nodes in a network topology with link status. (HTTP GET /api/v1/network-topology/link/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Link status filter | |
| topology | No | Filter links belonging to specific topology ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET endpoint, which usefully signals a safe read operation, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or result ordering/count.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence carrying category, action, scope, and endpoint with essentially no waste. The bracketed category tag is slightly noisy but harmless.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this is minimally adequate, but it omits response shape hints and pagination behavior that would round out a listing endpoint.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (status, topology) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes link-status filtering and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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 (List) and resource (physical or virtual links between nodes) with the added scope of link status, and the endpoint confirms it. It is clearly distinguishable from topology/node siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. Nothing tells the agent when to pick list_links over list_nodes or get_topology; usage is only implied by the word 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.