io.github.shigechika/junos-mcp

get_config

Retrieve Junos device configuration in text, set, or XML format by specifying the target hostname.

Instructions

Get device configuration.

Args: hostname: Target device hostname (must exist in config.ini) output_format: Output format - "text" (default), "set", or "xml" config_path: Path to config.ini (empty string uses default search)

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "get_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`hostname`	Yes
`config_path`	No
`output_format`	No	text

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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. It does not disclose that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The statement 'Get device configuration' implies a safe operation but is not explicit.

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 brief and well-organized with a purpose line followed by a parameter list. It avoids redundancy and focuses on key information, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more naturally.

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?

For a tool with an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only) and usage scenario, which are important for an agent to use it correctly, making it only minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds necessary meaning: hostname must exist, output_format options (text/set/xml), and config_path default behavior. This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions, though it could specify format details.

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 'Get device configuration' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_config_diff and get_version by focusing on the full configuration retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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