Retrieve physical topology details—nodes, connections, ports, and speeds—to identify inter-switch trunk ports before enabling loopback detection.
Physical topology: every node, what it is connected to, on which port, at what speed. Use this to confirm which ports are inter-switch trunks before touching loopback detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so safety is covered; the description still adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned data. With no output schema, spelling out what comes back (nodes, connections, port, speed) is the key behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two tight sentences, the resource and returned content front-loaded, followed by a single actionable caution. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
For a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent receives and when to reach for it. The only missing piece is any explanation of the siteId scope.
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 0% and the description never mentions siteId, so an agent gets no scoping semantics — is the topology global or per-site? The parameter name is suggestive but not explained, which is a real gap for a tool whose whole purpose is scoping a network view.
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?
Names a concrete resource (physical topology) and enumerates the returned facts — nodes, links, ports, speeds — which is far more specific than a tautology. It is distinguishable from sibling port tools like v2_switch_ports or v2_port_stats, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Gives a clear use case with a precondition: confirm inter-switch trunks before touching loopback detection. That is real situational guidance rather than implied usage. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a competing tool to prefer instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.