Retrieve OMP peer information for a specified device to inspect overlay control-plane adjacencies; optionally return vManage cached data instead of querying the device.
Get OMP (Overlay Management Protocol) peers for a device.
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only query, whether it hits the device in real time by default, latency/failure behavior if a device is unreachable, or what the response contains. The only behavioral hint, the cached-vs-real-time trade-off, lives in the schema, not the description.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being a model of economy.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn default behavior, return contents, or error handling for an unreachable device, and it says none of that. For a device-scoped query tool in a large sibling set, this is a significant completeness gap.
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%, with both parameters (device_id and synced) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as what identifies a valid device_id or the implications of synced=true.
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 verb and resource ('Get OMP peers') and scopes it to a device, which distinguishes it from sibling OMP tools like get_omp_routes, get_omp_tlocs and get_omp_links. It doesn't clarify what a 'peer' covers versus those adjacent OMP resources, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent OMP tools (get_omp_status, get_omp_summary, get_omp_links), nor any guidance on when the real-time query is appropriate versus the cached path. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.