Get bandwidth usage statistics for your cPanel account to track data transfer and manage resource limits.
Get bandwidth usage statistics for the account
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_bandwidth_usage"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get bandwidth usage statistics' without elaborating on data granularity, time period, units, or read-only guarantees. It implies read-only but omits any context that would help an agent anticipate the response shape or side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence of only six words. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description leaves the return value vague: 'bandwidth usage statistics' could refer to cumulative, monthly, or current usage. Without an output schema, the description should clarify the format or timeframe, which it does not. It is minimally viable but lacking in detail.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema is empty. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. There is nothing to clarify.
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 'Get' with the resource 'bandwidth usage statistics' and scope 'for the account', clearly distinguishing it from similar tools like get_resource_usage or get_visitors_stats. It is precise and unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_resource_usage, get_visitors_stats, and get_account_stats overlap in purpose, yet the description does not differentiate use cases or mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.