Skip to main content
Glama
moimran

EVE-NG MCP Server

by moimran

test_connection

Verify connectivity and check server status for the EVE-NG network emulation platform to ensure proper communication before managing network topologies.

Instructions

    Test connection to EVE-NG server.
    
    This tool verifies that the connection to the EVE-NG server is working
    properly and returns server status information.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'test_connection' MCP tool. It checks if connected to EVE-NG, fetches server status, and returns success or failure message.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def test_connection(arguments: TestConnectionArgs) -> list[TextContent]:
        """
        Test connection to EVE-NG server.
        
        This tool verifies that the connection to the EVE-NG server is working
        properly and returns server status information.
        """
        try:
            logger.info("Testing EVE-NG server connection")
            
            if not eveng_client.is_connected:
                return [TextContent(
                    type="text",
                    text="Not connected to EVE-NG server. Use connect_eveng_server tool first."
                )]
            
            # Test connection by getting server status
            status = await eveng_client.get_server_status()
            
            return [TextContent(
                type="text",
                text=f"Connection test successful!\n\n"
                     f"Server: {eveng_client.config.eveng.base_url}\n"
                     f"Status: Connected\n"
                     f"Server Version: {status.get('version', 'Unknown')}\n"
                     f"Server Status: {status.get('status', 'Unknown')}\n"
                     f"Uptime: {status.get('uptime', 'Unknown')}"
            )]
            
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Connection test failed: {e}")
            return [TextContent(
                type="text",
                text=f"Connection test failed: {str(e)}\n\n"
                     f"Please check your connection and try again."
            )]
  • Pydantic schema/model for the input arguments of the test_connection tool (no required arguments).
    class TestConnectionArgs(BaseModel):
        """Arguments for test_connection tool."""
        pass  # No arguments needed
  • Registration function that calls register_connection_tools (among others), which registers the test_connection tool.
    def register_tools(mcp: "FastMCP", eveng_client: "EVENGClientWrapper") -> None:
        """Register all MCP tools."""
    
        # Connection management tools
        register_connection_tools(mcp, eveng_client)
    
        # Lab management tools
        register_lab_tools(mcp, eveng_client)
    
        # Node management tools
        register_node_tools(mcp, eveng_client)
    
        # Network management tools
        register_network_tools(mcp, eveng_client)
  • Where the tools registration is invoked in the main server setup.
    # Register tools
    register_tools(self.mcp, self.eveng_client)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns server status information,' which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a connection-testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured in two sentences, front-loading the purpose ('Test connection to EVE-NG server') and following with elaboration. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative about behavior without losing efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (likely a simple connectivity check), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return value ('server status information'), but lacks details on error cases, authentication, or how it differs from sibling tools. This meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has one parameter ('arguments') with 0% description coverage, and the schema provides no details about its properties. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable here since the tool likely requires no user-provided inputs beyond a connection context. With zero parameters needing explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test connection to EVE-NG server' and 'verifies that the connection to the EVE-NG server is working properly.' It uses specific verbs ('test', 'verifies') and identifies the resource (EVE-NG server). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect_eveng_server' or 'disconnect_eveng_server', which prevents a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to similar tools like 'connect_eveng_server' or 'disconnect_eveng_server'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/moimran/eveng-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server