net-mcp

Local Mtr

local_mtr

Diagnose network path issues by running mtr to show per-hop packet loss and latency statistics between your host and any target. Combines ping and traceroute in one command.

Instructions

Run mtr (My Traceroute) combining ping and traceroute.

Shows per-hop packet loss and latency statistics. Requires mtr to be installed. May require admin/sudo for raw ICMP sockets on some systems — if permission is denied, the error will say so.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Hostname or IP address (an IPv6 literal may be bracketed)
`count`	No	Number of pings per hop (1-100)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Additional context about the result
`error`	No	Why the tool could not produce a result: input validation failure, tool disabled by configuration, binary not installed, or no service answered. Empty when the command executed.
`stderr`	Yes	Standard error of the command, or the failure message when the command did not run
`stdout`	Yes	Standard output of the command (curl output is capped at 10,000 characters)
`command`	Yes	The exact command line that was executed, or the tool name if the command never ran
`success`	Yes	True when the command ran and exited with status 0
`platform`	Yes	Operating system the command ran on (Darwin, Linux or Windows)
`returncode`	Yes	Process exit status. 0 = success; 2 = input rejected before running; 124 = timed out; 126 = disabled by config or permission denied; 127 = binary not found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses per-hop packet loss/latency output, the install prerequisite, the possible admin/sudo requirement for raw ICMP sockets, and what happens if permission is denied. It does not mention runtime behavior or that it performs a fixed count of pings per hop, but the schema covers count.

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?

Three short sentences, all substantive: purpose, output value, and operational caveats. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the low parameter count, the presence of an output schema, and a moderate complexity level, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, what it reports, installation requirements, and permission failures. It is slightly light on sibling differentiation, but that is more a usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with host and count already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Run mtr (My Traceroute) combining ping and traceroute,' and explains what it shows. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like local_ping or local_traceroute, but the 'combining ping and traceroute' phrasing locates it among them.

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 it (when you want both ping and traceroute combined) and provides a prerequisite: mtr must be installed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this rather than local_ping, local_traceroute, or other sibling tools, and no exclusions.

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