Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
remnawave-mcp

remnawave-mcp

by 3APA3A-3AHO3A
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_node_metadata

Read-only

Fetch metadata for a specific Remnawave node by UUID to inspect node details for monitoring, troubleshooting, or panel audits.

Instructions

Get node metadata [READ] GET /api/metadata/node/:uuid

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "get_node_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesPath parameter uuid

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the "[READ]" tag merely restates structured data. The description adds no auth requirements, rate limits, or behavioral context, and exposes only the raw HTTP route, which is of little value to an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the action and resource. The appended HTTP method/path is mildly redundant with the read-only annotation but does map the tool to an endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It says nothing about what node metadata is returned or how it differs from sibling read tools, which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required uuid parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or meaning beyond what is structured, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Get node metadata"), which is clearly a read of node-level metadata. However it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_node, get_metadata, or get_user_metadata, leaving the agent to infer node-vs-user-scoped metadata from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_node, get_metadata, or get_user_metadata, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only hint is the implicit node scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools