Retrieve current or historical connections for a Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Validator (vBond) using its system IP, enabling troubleshooting and connection auditing.
Get connections on a Validator (vBond), current or history. Use the validator system-ip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| history | No | Return connection history instead of current connections | |
| device_id | Yes | Validator (vBond) 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 little: only that the tool can return either current or historical data. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions required, volume/pagination of results, or what a 'connection' record contains, which matters for a monitoring query.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the operative input hint. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 this is minimum-viable: the agent knows what it retrieves and what to pass. With no annotations and no output schema, though, the description should say more about the shape of the returned connection data and any limits.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal reinforcement by tying 'system-ip' to the device_id concept and 'current or history' to the history flag, but no new format or validation detail.
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 connections on a Validator (vBond)', with the 'current or history' scope distinction. It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_validator_summary or get_validator_statistics by resource focus, though it does not explicitly name the sibling that fetches the same data for controllers.
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?
'current or history' implies the two operating modes, and 'Use the validator system-ip' hints at the input. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_control_connections or get_control_connections_history, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.