port_description_getRetrieve the description of a network port from LibreNMS by providing its port ID. Get precise port details for monitoring and troubleshooting.
Get port description from LibreNMS by port ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port_id | Yes | Port ID. |
| 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?
The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, default values, or return format, but for a simple read operation the annotations carry the burden adequately.
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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and provides the key lookup mechanism immediately.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema present. The description states exactly what is needed to invoke it correctly, and nothing important is missing for an agent to select and call it.
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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Port ID.' The description merely restates that the lookup is by port ID without adding new semantic details, so the schema already handles parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('port description'), and a clear lookup key ('by port ID'). This distinguishes it from related tools like port_get, which targets a broader port object, and port_description_update, which modifies the field.
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 implies the appropriate use case: when you have a port ID and need its description. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as port_get or ports_search, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.