fdb_lookupQuery the forwarding database to locate a MAC address across network devices, revealing the switch and port where it is active.
Look up a MAC address in the forwarding database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | MAC address to look up. Accepts multiple formats: aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff, aabb.ccdd.eeff, or aabbccddeeff |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the lookup action, such as behavior on no match or whether all devices are searched. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the core action and resource, making it highly efficient.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, the presence of overlapping siblings (device_fdb, port_fdb, ports_search_mac) means the description lacks the contextual information needed for an agent to reliably select this tool over alternatives.
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 input schema fully documents the mac parameter and accepted formats. The tool description merely repeats 'MAC address' without adding any new semantic meaning or clarifying how parameters combine.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('look up') and resource ('forwarding database'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like device_fdb or port_fdb that also operate on the forwarding database, so the scope remains somewhat ambiguous.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as device_fdb, port_fdb, ports_search_mac, or arp_search. It does not say whether this is a global lookup across all devices or per-device, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.