Retrieve networks in an organization with IDs, names, product types, and tags. Use it to inventory or audit Meraki networks by target org before running health or drift checks.
[READ] Networks in the organization (id, name, productTypes, tags).
Args:
org_id: Meraki organization id; omit to use the target's default org.
target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant. The description does add value by naming the returned fields, but omits pagination, result-size limits, and whether the listing is filtered by product type. With annotations covering safety, a 3 fits.
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?
Two short args lines, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. The 'Args:' block is slightly ceremonial for two optional parameters but not wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and both params are at least addressed. What is missing is any note on list size, pagination, or whether productTypes reflects a filter — minor gaps for a simple read-only listing tool.
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 parameter meaning — and it partially does: org_id is defined and its default behavior explained, as is target. However 'Target name from config' is circular and never says what a target actually is or how it relates to org_id, leaving the second parameter only superficially documented. Baseline for two fully explained params would be 4; the vagueness on target holds it to 3.
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?
The verb and resource are explicit ('[READ] Networks in the organization') and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields (id, name, productTypes, tags), so an agent knows this is an org-wide network listing rather than a single-network fetch. It does not explicitly name the sibling network_get to distinguish list-vs-get, so it falls short of 5.
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?
The only usage context is scoping: 'omit to use the target's default org' and 'omit for the default.' That tells the agent how to call it, but nothing about when to prefer it over network_get, network_vlans, or the org-level listing siblings. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.