port_group_addCreate a new port group in LibreNMS to organize network ports by supplying a name and optional description.
Add a port group to LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Port group payload: - name (required): Port group name - desc (optional): Port group description |
| 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 that this is not read-only and is destructive, and the description merely reiterates the mutation ('Add') without adding further behavioral context. There is no mention of duplicate-name behavior, whether the operation overwrites anything, permission requirements, or side effects beyond the 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 or repetition. It states the action and target system directly, earning its place without wasted words.
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 creation tool, the schema fully documents the payload and annotations communicate the mutating/destructive nature. The description could be more complete by clarifying duplicate handling or explicitly routing away from assign/remove siblings, but nothing essential for a basic invocation is missing.
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 the payload property documenting both 'name' as required and 'desc' as optional. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic load.
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 ('Add') and names the resource ('a port group to LibreNMS'), so an agent can tell this action creates a port group. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like port_group_assign or port_group_remove, which would make it fully differentiated.
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?
Usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it wants to add a new port group. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over port_group_assign, port_group_remove, or port_groups_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.