fabric-aiops

wireless_ssids

Read-only

Read SSID configurations for a specified Meraki network, returning each SSID's name, enabled status, and total count for audit or verification.

Instructions

[READ] Wireless (MR) SSIDs configured on a network (number, name, enabled).

Args:
    network_id: Meraki network id (from network_list).
    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": {
      "network_id": "<network_id>"
    },
    "name": "wireless_ssids"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`network_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it via the [READ] tag. It adds the useful fact that the response contains number, name, and enabled, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth/permission needs beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded. The 'Target name from config' line is the weakest, since 'config' is never defined, but overall the text is tight and well ordered.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers both parameters and sketches the return fields. The main gap is that 'target/config' is introduced without explanation, leaving the non-default path ambiguous.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: network_id is identified as a Meraki network id sourced from network_list, and target is explained as a config target that defaults when omitted. The notion of 'target'/'config' is still somewhat opaque, so it falls short of fully compensating.

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?

The description states a specific resource (Wireless MR SSIDs configured on a network) and enumerates the returned fields (number, name, enabled), with a [READ] marker signalling a list/read verb. It does not name a sibling to differentiate against, but no sibling covers SSIDs, so confusion risk is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the network_id arg points at network_list as the source, which tells the agent where the id comes from, and the target arg says to omit it for the default. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative tool is named.

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