Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meraki-dashboard-api

meraki-dashboard-api

by Flagler-County-BoCC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

switch-list-linkaggregations

Retrieve all link aggregation groups in a network. View switch ports assigned to each group for topology and redundancy analysis.

Instructions

List link aggregation groups. (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": {
      "networkId": "<networkId>"
    },
    "name": "switch-list-linkaggregations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkIdYesNetwork ID
fieldsNoReturn only these top-level fields; omit for all. Available: id, switchPorts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only adds that it is read-only, which is helpful but minimal. No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose more behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, authorization needs), but it does not.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise at two sentences, but the information is minimal; it is appropriately sized for the lack of content, not because it is efficient.

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 the simple input schema and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It lacks context about return values, limits, or practical usage, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 it lists link aggregation groups with the verb 'list' and resource 'link aggregation groups'. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like switch-list-ports or switch-list-interfaces.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The '(read-only)' hint is implicit and does not provide exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools