Retrieve a client's Meraki usage history rolled up to total sent and received KB, helping assess bandwidth consumption by network and client.
[READ] A client's usage history rolled up to total sent/received KB.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds the aggregation detail (rolled up to total sent/received KB), but does not disclose return format, historical time span coverage, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this extra detail is moderate value.
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?
Front-loaded with [READ] and purpose. The Args block is standard and each line is short. One sentence intros plus three parameter lines, no fluff, though the target line is a bit cryptic and could be trimmed or improved.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description should ideally explain return values or time range. It covers what the tool does and identifies parameters, but misses context about aggregation period, data freshness, and required permissions. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 carries full parameter burden. It names network_id as 'Meraki network id' and client_id as 'Client id/MAC (from client_list)', adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare types. However, the target parameter explanation ('Target name from config; omit for the default') is vague and doesn't clarify what config refers to or what the default is. Two of three parameters get only basic identification, leaving gaps.
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 (rolled up) and resource (client's usage history into total sent/received KB). The scope is clear enough to distinguish from sibling client_list and client_connectivity, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description alludes to client_id coming from client_list, hinting at a workflow, but doesn't offer any exclusion criteria or alternative selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.