switching_linksList all links from LibreNMS with limit and offset pagination to retrieve monitored network connections in manageable batches.
List all links from LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.3Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 100,
+ "description": "Maximum number of results to return",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.9.0Does 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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what a 'link' is, whether results are paginated, or any other behavioral trait, so it provides no extra value over the structured fields.
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 is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits what 'links' refers to and how this tool relates to the similar device_links sibling, leaving a real ambiguity for an agent selecting among many networking tools.
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%, so limit and offset are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a clear verb 'List' and a resource 'links from LibreNMS', but 'links' is ambiguous in a networking context (switching links could mean topology links, link aggregation, spanning-tree links, etc.). It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling device_links, leaving the agent unsure which to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as device_links or switching_vlans, and no prerequisites or scope conditions are given. The description offers only a bare statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.