fabric-aiops

device_status

Read-only

Check a Meraki device's availability status—online, offline, alerting, or dormant—by serial to verify connectivity and operational health.

Instructions

[READ] One device's availability status (online/offline/alerting/dormant).

Args:
    serial: Device serial (e.g. Q2XX-XXXX-XXXX).
    org_id: Meraki organization id; omit to use the target's default org.
    target: Target name from config; omit for the default.

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": {
      "serial": "<serial>"
    },
    "name": "device_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org_id`	No
`serial`	Yes
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the [READ] tag reinforces it without contradiction. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the four returned status values, which matters since there is no output schema. No auth or rate-limit caveats are mentioned.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact Args block. No filler sentences; every line maps to a parameter or the core purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only, single-device lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, and the possible return states. Only minor gaps remain around auth/permission expectations and what fields accompany the status.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and documents all three parameters: serial with a format example, org_id with meaning and default-omission behavior, and target with its source. The 'target' explanation ('name from config') is a bit thin but functional.

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?

States a specific verb ([READ]) and resource ('One device's availability status') and enumerates the possible states (online/offline/alerting/dormant). The singular 'one device' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk sibling org_device_statuses, though it never names the alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as org_device_statuses. The only conditional text ('omit to use the target's default org') is per-parameter behavior, not usage routing, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.