Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
remnawave-mcp

remnawave-mcp

by 3APA3A-3AHO3A
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_stats_node_users_usage

Read-only

Retrieve per-user bandwidth usage for a specific node by UUID and date range to analyze traffic consumption.

Instructions

Get Node Users Usage by Node UUID [READ] GET /api/bandwidth-stats/nodes/:uuid/users

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>",
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "get_stats_node_users_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD)
uuidYes
startYesStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
topUsersLimitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 in the description is redundant. The description adds only the raw endpoint path and no context on result size, aggregation window semantics, or what the top-users limit affects.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted prose. It is terse but not padded.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A four-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond the read-only pair needs more explanation than this: what the usage figures represent, the time-range semantics, and how the limit parameter behaves are all absent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: uuid and topUsersLimit are undocumented in the schema, and the description does nothing to compensate. It only restates 'by Node UUID', adding no format, range, or meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get Node Users Usage by Node UUID'), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does not differentiate from several closely-named siblings such as get_stats_nodes_users_usage, get_stats_nodes_usage, and get_stats_user_usage, leaving an agent unclear which scope applies.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling stats tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The only clue is the implied 'node UUID' scoping in the title.

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