Retrieves dashboard administrators for a Meraki organization, listing each admin's name, email, and access level. Use org_id or target to scope the query.
[READ] Dashboard administrators for the org (name, email, access level).
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 tells the agent this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' marker largely repeats that. The description does add value by disclosing the returned fields (name, email, access level), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination.
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 the purpose and the returned fields before the arg list. The Args block is slightly verbose but every line adds meaning and nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the shape of returned data, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps (auth, pagination) remain but are not blocking.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it explains org_id (Meraki organization id, default org if omitted) and target (config target name, default if omitted). Both parameters and their defaulting behavior are documented, though format examples are absent.
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 (list/read) and resource (dashboard administrators for the org) and even names the returned fields (name, email, access level). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like org_list or org_get, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
It gives per-parameter guidance (omit org_id/target to fall back to defaults), which is useful operational context, but offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.