get_network_eventsAttach and data-session events for one eSIM, newest first, each flagged is_allowed. wrong_network_count > 0 means the device latched onto a network outside the plan — the usual cause of "connected but no data" (fix: airplane-mode toggle or manual network selection).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iccid | Yes | ICCID of the eSIM (19-20 digits) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral detail: events are returned newest first, each event carries an is_allowed flag, and wrong_network_count indicates a device attached outside the plan with a suggested fix. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but it exceeds annotation coverage meaningfully.
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 compact and front-loads the event type and ordering. The first sentence is a fragment rather than a complete statement, but the content is not padded or repetitive.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the return ordering and a key diagnostic field, which helps the agent interpret results. It omits the 7-day window from the description body, relying on the title, but otherwise covers what is needed to call and use the tool.
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 the single iccid parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 title and description name a specific resource, network events, scoped to one eSIM and the last 7 days. It also states the return ordering and a key field, so it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_esim_usage or get_esim_live_status.
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 diagnostic meaning for wrong_network_count and mentions remediation, which implies troubleshooting 'connected but no data' scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_esim_live_status or get_esim_usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.