io.github.shigechika/junos-mcp

rollback_package

Revert Junos OS to a previously installed package version. Checks for a pending version before rolling back, and skips the operation if none exists.

Instructions

Rollback to previously installed package version.

Checks pending version first. If no pending version exists, rollback is skipped.

Args: hostname: Target device hostname (must exist in config.ini) dry_run: If True (default), show what would be done without rolling back 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": "rollback_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 discloses key behaviors: checking pending version, skipping rollback if absent, and dry_run defaulting to true. It could mention more about side effects (e.g., if rollback triggers a reboot).

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 multi-line with an Args section, but every sentence adds value. It is not overly verbose and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more compact.

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

Completeness4/5

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) and 3 parameters. The description covers behavioral aspects and parameter roles well. It lacks information about return values, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall, it is adequately 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 description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: hostname must exist in config.ini, dry_run shows what would be done, config_path uses default search if empty. These details compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Rollback to previously installed package version', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes from siblings like install_package and copy_package by focusing on rollback functionality.

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 explains that the tool checks a pending version first and skips if none exists, providing clear context for when the tool is effective. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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