port_group_assignAssign specific ports to a port group in LibreNMS by providing port IDs and the target group ID.
Assign ports to a port group in LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Port IDs to assign. Format: {"port_ids": [1, 2, 3]} | |
| port_group_id | Yes | Port group 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?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether existing port assignments are replaced, whether the group must already exist, or how failures are handled.
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 identifying the tool's purpose and scope.
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 mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks usage and alternative guidance, but the core invocation details are present.
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?
The schema fully documents both parameters, including the structured payload format with port_ids. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Assign') and resource ('ports' to a 'port group'), and names the system context ('LibreNMS'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like port_group_add, port_group_remove, and port_group_list_ports.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as port_group_add or port_group_remove, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the action itself, providing no additional routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.