switching_vlansRetrieve and list all VLANs from LibreNMS with pagination support, enabling network administrators to query VLAN configurations across monitored switches and devices.
List all VLANs 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the data source; it says nothing about scope (all devices vs. one), auth requirements, or rate limits, so it contributes little behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list operation. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but there is no wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return values and side effects need no explanation. The remaining gap is scope: with device_vlans present in the sibling set, the description should state whether this returns VLANs across all devices or something narrower.
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% with only two self-documenting pagination parameters (limit, offset), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about pagination defaults or limit ranges.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ("List all VLANs") plus the data source ("from LibreNMS"), so an agent knows exactly what object is returned. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling device_vlans, nor does it clarify whether the listing is global or implicitly scoped, which is the one ambiguity that matters here.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closely related device_vlans sibling, and no stated prerequisites or pagination expectations. The agent is left to infer that this is the global counterpart to the per-device VLAN tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.