io.github.shigechika/junos-mcp

compare_version

Compare two JUNOS version strings to determine which is newer. Returns greater than, equal to, or less than results without requiring a device connection.

Instructions

Compare two JUNOS version strings.

Returns whether left is greater than, equal to, or less than right. No device connection required.

Args: left: First JUNOS version string (e.g., "22.4R3-S6.5") right: Second JUNOS version string (e.g., "23.2R1.0")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "left": "<left>",
      "right": "<right>"
    },
    "name": "compare_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`left`	Yes
`right`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a pure string comparison, no device connection, and the output is a comparison result. This is sufficient for a simple, deterministic tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, with only two sentences that directly explain purpose, usage, and no device requirement. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has an output schema (not shown but present), so the description only needs to explain the high-level behavior, which it does. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, making it complete for a simple comparison tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing example version strings (e.g., 22.4R3-S6.5) that clarify the expected format. This adds value beyond the basic schema types.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool compares two JUNOS version strings and returns the relational result. The verb 'compare' and resource 'JUNOS version strings' are specific, and the sibling tools (e.g., get_version, check_reachability) have distinct purposes, eliminating confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'No device connection required,' indicating light-weight usage without network calls. While it doesn't list when not to use, the context is clear, and the sibling tools provide natural alternatives for version retrieval or device checks.

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