ospf_portsRetrieve all OSPF ports and interfaces from LibreNMS. Supports pagination via limit and offset.
List all OSPF ports/interfaces from LibreNMS.
Returns: dict: The JSON response from the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.3Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 100,
+ "description": "Maximum number of results to return",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('List all') and a redundant return type, but does not mention pagination implications or the fact that the default limit is 100, so it does not fully clarify behavior beyond the annotations and schema.
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 main description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. The 'Returns' line adds little value because an output schema exists, but the overall text is still compact and not bloated.
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 listing tool with fully documented pagination parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks sibling usage guidance, but the essential invocation details are covered elsewhere.
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%, with both limit and offset already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description clearly names the action ('List') and the resource ('OSPF ports/interfaces from LibreNMS'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic port tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ospf_list or device_ports, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ospf_list, ports_list, or device_ports. The description simply states what it does without offering any selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.