Retrieve one Meraki client's description, MAC, IP, VLAN, and manufacturer by network ID and client ID/MAC for troubleshooting and inventory.
[READ] One client's detail (description, MAC, IP, VLAN, manufacturer).
Args:
network_id: Meraki network id.
client_id: Client id/MAC (from client_list).
target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| network_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower; the [READ] tag merely restates it. The description adds the set of fields returned and the target-omission default, but says nothing about rate limits or 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?
The [READ] marker and resource summary are front-loaded, followed by a compact args block. Every line earns its place, with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return fields, and all parameters are covered. The only soft spot is the vague 'Target name from config' phrasing, which leaves an agent guessing what a target represents.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents all three parameters: network_id, client_id (with a hint it comes from client_list and accepts a MAC), and target (omit for the default). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.
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 (get) and resource (one client's detail), and enumerates the returned fields (description, MAC, IP, VLAN, manufacturer). It implies differentiation from client_list by naming it as the source of client_id, though it never explicitly contrasts the two tools.
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?
Usage is only implied: client_id comes 'from client_list', suggesting this is the single-record counterpart to that list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use vs client_usage or client_connectivity, nor any exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.