Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
remnawave-mcp

remnawave-mcp

by 3APA3A-3AHO3A
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_stats_nodes_usage

Read-only

Retrieve bandwidth usage statistics for nodes over a date range, optionally limiting results to top nodes.

Instructions

Get Nodes Usage by Range [READ] GET /api/bandwidth-stats/nodes/

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "get_stats_nodes_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD)
startYesStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
topNodesLimitNoLimit of top nodes to return

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]' marker and endpoint path add essentially no behavioral information. The description does not disclose aggregation semantics, pagination, default window, or what the usage figures represent.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded with the operation. The trailing endpoint line is of marginal value and edges toward redundancy with the readOnly annotation, but overall there is no wasted prose.

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 simple annotated read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and heavy sibling overlap, the description could reasonably say what is returned (per-node bandwidth over the range) and how it differs from adjacent stats tools.

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%: start and end are documented as YYYY-MM-DD dates and topNodesLimit has a default and description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (it only implies the date range), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get Nodes Usage') with a scoping qualifier ('by Range'). It is not a tautology, but it offers no differentiation from the many sibling stats tools such as get_node_usage, get_nodes_metrics, get_nodes_statistics, and get_stats_nodes_users_usage, so it lands at 'clear but no sibling differentiation'.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a crowded sibling space of node/usage statistics tools. The agent must infer selection entirely from the name.

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