Skip to main content
Glama
ssservicios

mcp-ispkeeper

by ssservicios
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_internet_connections

List internet service connections by applying filters for technology, branch, client, plan, status, and dates. Use tecnologia codes to match conexion_tipo for correct results.

Instructions

List internet service connections with filters. tecnologia matches the connection's conexion_tipo code. The docs list R=Radio, T=Torre, O=ONU, H=HFC, S=Switch, P=PPPoE, D=DHCP, but instances use their own set (e.g. H, S, Q, U) — check conexion_tipo on existing records before filtering. ⚠️ NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoText search
sucNoBranch ID (see list_auxiliary_data branches)
pageNoPage number
planNoPlan ID
clienteNoClient ID
cortadoNoFilter cut-off connections
per_pageNoResults per page (default 50)
altaDesdeNoCreated from date (YYYY-MM-DD)
altaHastaNoCreated until date (YYYY-MM-DD)
relacionesNoExpand relations: cli,boc,ip,ippub,pre,rou,sto,subz,suc,mac,vlan,svlan,loc,mik,pl,plp,caja,extra
tecnologiaNoTechnology code as stored in conexion_tipo (e.g. H, S, Q, U)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / suc
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Branch ID (see list_auxiliary_data branches)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tecnologia / description
      Previous value: -"Technology: R,T,O,H,S,P,D"New value: +"Technology code as stored in conexion_tipo (e.g. H, S, Q, U)"
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully warns that technology codes may differ from documentation and should be checked against existing records, and it instructs the agent to report errors rather than fabricate data. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or other operational traits beyond the failure warning.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and no filler. The warning and technology caveat are each purposeful and add real value for correct tool use.

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 the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves some gaps: it does not describe the return format/fields, pagination behavior, or how this listing relates to sibling log/detail tools. The parameter caveat is helpful, but overall context for a complex list tool is not fully 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?

All 11 parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met. The description adds meaningful, non-obvious semantics for the tecnologia parameter: it maps to conexion_tipo, notes that documented codes differ from instance-specific codes, and advises checking existing records. This goes beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List internet service connections with filters.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_phone_connections, list_tv_connections, and get_internet_connection. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use this tool—when listing internet connections—and gives a filter-specific caveat, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_internet_connections_log for historical data. Usage context is present but exclusion guidance is absent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools