Retrieve system bandwidth usage data to track network traffic and assess VPN panel performance.
Get bandwidth statistics
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "system_bandwidth_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get bandwidth statistics' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
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?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Get bandwidth statistics') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity of a statistics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what bandwidth statistics are returned (e.g., metrics, time frames, units) or behavioral aspects like permissions or data freshness. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
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 description 'Get bandwidth statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('bandwidth statistics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what bandwidth statistics are retrieved (e.g., system-wide, per-node, time range) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'system_stats' or 'system_nodes_statistics', which might overlap in scope.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'system_stats' and 'system_nodes_statistics' that might offer related metrics, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.