Retrieve fabric-wide control plane summaries per device, including control connections, OMP and vSmart peers, and reachability. Filter results by up or down state to quickly assess network health.
Fabric-wide: per-device control plane summary (control connections, OMP peers, vSmart peers, reachability).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | Filter by control state |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 the aggregation scope (fabric-wide) and the data categories returned, which is useful. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or result shape, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a fragment without an explicit verb, which slightly reduces scannability, but every element carries information.
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 summary tool with no output schema and one optional enum parameter, listing the included metrics is a reasonable completeness level. The missing piece is disambiguation from the many similarly named control/OMP summary siblings, which an agent needs in this crowded namespace.
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 100% and the single field is an enum, so the schema fully documents the 'state' filter. The description adds no information about it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description names the resource (per-device control plane summary) and enumerates the exact contents: control connections, OMP peers, vSmart peers, reachability, plus the 'fabric-wide' scope. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_control_summary or get_omp_summary.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'fabric-wide' hints that this aggregates across all devices rather than one device. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the many control/OMP summary siblings that could be chosen instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.