Trace the network path to any host and get a hop-by-hop report of latency and packet loss, using a fixed number of test cycles to diagnose connectivity issues.
Path/MTU-style hop report via mtr --report (fixed cycles, not a live run). cycles clamped 1-10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| cycles | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burdin of behavior disclosure. It adds useful behavioral constraints: the tool runs `mtr --report` in fixed cycles (not live) and clamps cycles to 1-10. However, it does not mention that it relies on an external mtr command, potential permission/network requirements, timeouts, or result interpretation beyond the output schema.
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?
Very concise: a single sentence that fronts the core purpose and then adds a key behavioral constraint. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the core function and a parameter constraint. However, it omits operational details that an agent would need, such as whether the tool depends on an external mtr binary, what network protocol it uses (ICMP/UDP), and potential timeout or failure behavior. These are not covered by annotations either.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for the `cycles` parameter by noting it is clamped to 1-10 and implies a fixed-cycle behavior. The `host` parameter is self-evident from the tool name and purpose. No detail on default values or special formats, but the essential meanings are conveyed.
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 specific function (Path/MTU-style hop report) via `mtr --report`, which clearly indicates a network path tracing/mtr tool. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like ping_host and dns_lookup by the focus on hop-level path reporting. Lacks an explicit verb like 'traces' or 'generates', but the noun phrase plus the mtr reference is clear enough.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ping_host or health_check. The only contextual hint is 'fixed cycles, not a live run', which distinguishes it from an interactive/live traceroute but does not explain when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.