Skip to main content
Glama
mhajder

librenms-mcp

by mhajder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Ports Search Field

ports_search_field
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search LibreNMS ports by a specific field such as ifAlias, ifDescr, or ifName to find matching interfaces.

Instructions

Search ports in LibreNMS by specific field.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesField to search: ifAlias, ifDescr, ifName, ifType, etc.
limitNoMaximum number of results to return
offsetNoNumber of results to skip (offset) for pagination
searchYesSearch term. "0" is not supported: LibreNMS treats it as empty.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.12.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / search / description
      Previous value: -"Search term"New value: +"Search term. \"0\" is not supported: LibreNMS treats it as empty."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.10.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "description": "Maximum number of results to return",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior despite limit/offset, no result-cap or rate-limit context, and no hint about how field selection affects matching.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness is what creates the gaps captured in the other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents all four parameters. What is missing is the routing context: with three near-identical port search siblings, an agent needs at least a clause explaining when this field-based search is the right one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the useful note that search term "0" is treated as empty and the field examples, so the schema carries the full burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ("Search ports") and adds a scope hint ("by specific field"), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related siblings ports_search and ports_search_mac, leaving the agent to guess which search variant applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative search tools (ports_search, ports_search_mac) that clearly overlap. The agent must infer the choice purely from the name and the parameter list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools