meraki-dashboard-api

devices-list-lldpcdp

List LLDP and CDP neighbor information for a Meraki device by providing its serial number.

Instructions

List LLDP and CDP information for a device. (read-only)

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": "devices-list-lldpcdp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serial`	Yes	Serial
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields; omit for all. Available: ports, sourceMac.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'read-only,' indicating no mutations, but does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the device serial is invalid. This is insufficient for a tool listing LLDP/CDP info.

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?

The description is very concise at one sentence plus a parenthetical note. There is no fluff, and every part carries meaning. However, it lacks structure (e.g., paragraph breaks or bullet points), which would be beneficial for complex tools but acceptable here.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, but it does not. It also does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., device must support LLDP/CDP). The tool is relatively simple, but the missing return information leaves the agent unclear on what to expect from the response.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds nothing beyond the schema: 'serial' is required with minLength, 'fields' is an optional array with available values noted. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 clearly states the tool lists LLDP and CDP information for a device, and the '(read-only)' note adds clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other types of device information. However, it does not elaborate on what LLDP/CDP are, which might be assumed but is acceptable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without indicating when it is appropriate or when to avoid using it. No exclusions or mention of other tools that might be more suitable for different scenarios.

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

Deploy Server