Retrieve network topology maps with optional device group filtering and connection data to visualize infrastructure relationships.
Get network topology map data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| device_group_id | No | Filter by device group ID | |
| include_connections | No | Include connection data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't explain what the topology map contains, how include_connections affects output, or whether results are paginated. For a read-only tool, this leaves the return format and interpretation entirely unspecified.
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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the purpose. It's concise and efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no description of the returned data structure or filtering behavior, the description is too thin. An agent cannot infer what 'topology map data' entails or how to interpret the response, making the tool underdocumented.
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% – all three parameters (limit, device_group_id, include_connections) have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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+resource: 'Get network topology map data'. It's distinct from siblings like get_topologysources or get_device_connections, though it's somewhat generic and doesn't elaborate on what the map contains. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_topologysources, get_device_neighbors, or get_graph_data. No context or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.