vrf_listList VRF instances from LibreNMS with pagination controls to review virtual routing and forwarding configurations.
List all VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instances 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 no behavioral context beyond that — it says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, permissions, or scope.
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 communicates the action, the resource, and the source system without waste.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. It is essentially complete for a simple read-only list tool, though a note on result scoping or pagination expectations would close the remaining gap.
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 both limit and offset fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as default page size or recommended pagination patterns.
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 specific verb (List) and a specific resource (VRF instances) plus the data source (LibreNMS). The resource is distinct from every sibling tool, so it is easy to route to, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with related network-listing tools such as switching_vlans or ospf_list.
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, and no prerequisites, scope, or filtering conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.