io.github.shigechika/junos-mcp

list_remote_files

Lists files on a remote Junos device, defaulting to /var/tmp, with a configurable path via config.ini.

Instructions

List files on the remote device path (/var/tmp by default).

Args: hostname: Target device hostname (must exist in config.ini) 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": "list_remote_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hostname`	Yes
`config_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, authorization needs, or behavior in error cases (e.g., invalid hostname, missing path). The default path is mentioned but the absence of a path parameter is confusing.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It uses a clear 'Args:' structure to document parameters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description omits behavior for invalid inputs, error handling, and how the default path is used. It is minimally complete for a simple list operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds needed meaning. It explains that hostname must exist in config.ini and that config_path is the path to config.ini with a default search behavior. This goes beyond the schema's type/default definitions.

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 lists files on a remote device path, specifying the default path '/var/tmp'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_local_inventory' or 'run_show_command'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides context that hostname must exist in config.ini, but does not specify when to use this tool over others or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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