port_transceiverRetrieve transceiver information for a port ID from LibreNMS to check optical module status and diagnose connectivity problems.
Get port transceiver 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?
The description states a read operation ('Get'), which aligns with the annotations readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as error behavior or data source limitations, but the annotations already cover the safety profile and no contradiction exists.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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, read-only getter with one required parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, this description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. No critical information 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?
The single parameter port_id is fully described in the schema ('Port ID.'), and the description reiterates that the lookup is by port ID. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much parameter-level detail beyond what is already provided.
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 identifies the action (get), the resource (port transceiver info), the source system (LibreNMS), and the required input (port ID). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like port_get or ports_list, which target different port-related resources.
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 tool is used when port transceiver information is needed for a specific port ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or fallback tools, so usage 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.