Retrieve bandwidth usage stats for a specific user across a date range, including top nodes by traffic. Use it to track data consumption and node activity for that user.
Get User Usage by Range [READ] GET /api/bandwidth-stats/users/:userId
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| start | Yes | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| userId | Yes | ID of the user | |
| topNodesLimit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the '[READ] GET ...' line merely restates that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: no indication of what 'usage' is measured in, whether results are aggregated or time-bucketed, or any rate/pagination behavior.
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?
It is short and the purpose is front-loaded, but the '[READ] GET /api/bandwidth-stats/users/:userId' line largely duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and the tool name rather than adding information, and the remaining brevity reflects under-specification more than tight writing.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits the meaning of 'usage', how start/end bound the aggregation, and what topNodesLimit controls. An agent can infer the call shape from the schema but not the semantics of the result.
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 coverage is 75% (userId, start, end are documented; topNodesLimit is not), and the description explains none of the parameters. In particular topNodesLimit — which shapes the response — is left undefined in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Get User Usage by Range') and the endpoint path /api/bandwidth-stats/users/:userId makes clear it is per-user bandwidth usage over a time window. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_stats_node_users_usage, get_stats_nodes_users_usage, or get_internal_squad_user_usage.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many usage/stats siblings. The only selection hint is the implicit [READ] marker, which does not help an agent choose between this and the other per-user or per-node usage tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.