port_ip_infoRetrieve IP address information for a network port by port ID from LibreNMS, enabling quick identification and troubleshooting of network connections.
Get port IP info 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so there is no contradiction. The description adds minimal context (source system and lookup key), but it does not disclose extra behaviors such as error/empty-result handling, auth requirements, or output shape; with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not deeply enriched.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, source, and parameter in as few words as possible.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with a full schema and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool. Return values are specified by the output schema, and safety is covered by annotations.
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% — port_id is described in the schema as 'Port ID.' The description only repeats 'by port ID' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('port IP info'), a source system ('LibreNMS'), and the lookup key ('port ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like port_get or device_ports_get, which target broader port or device data.
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 phrase 'by port ID' implies the tool is for lookups when a port ID is available and IP info is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related port/device tools or mention any exclusions/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.