Retrieves control plane WAN interface (TLOC) state for a device, including color, IP/port, and control connection counts.
Get control plane WAN interface (TLOC) state for a device: color, public/private IP and port, control connection counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| synced | No | Return vManage cached (synced) data instead of querying the device in real time | |
| device_id | Yes | Device ID or system-ip |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully identifies the returned state fields, but it does not disclose whether data is real-time or cached by default, permission requirements, or rate/query behavior; the 'synced' parameter documents that choice only in the 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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no wasted text. The resource and return fields are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete because it names the key return fields. It could mention the real-time versus cached behavior as behavioral context, but that is already covered by the schema's synced parameter.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the synced-vs-real-time distinction. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get control plane WAN interface (TLOC) state for a device,' and enumerates the state fields (color, public/private IP/port, connection counts). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_device_tloc or get_control_connections.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts. It only implies usage by saying the query is 'for a device.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.