Retrieve device telemetry such as CPU, RAM, signal, temperature, and throughput bucketed by hour, day, month, quarter, or year.
Get device telemetry (CPU/RAM/signal/temperature/throughput) bucketed by interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device ID (from uisp_list_devices). | |
| interval | Yes | Time bucket for the statistics. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only telemetry operation and bucket granularity, but does not explain aggregation semantics (e.g., averages vs. raw samples), units, data availability windows, or edge-case behavior. This is a thin disclosure beyond the obvious 'Get' semantics.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the metric list parenthetically. No filler or redundant content.
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?
The parameters are well documented and enough to construct a valid call, but with no output schema the description leaves the response contract unclear: units, aggregation method, time range, and result shape for the bucketed telemetry are unspecified. For a statistics endpoint, this is a moderate completeness gap.
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 100%, with the id and interval parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds context about telemetry categories but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('device telemetry'), enumerates the metric categories (CPU/RAM/signal/temperature/throughput), and notes interval bucketing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like site/network statistics or device detail endpoints, even without naming 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?
The description implies usage for per-device telemetry with time bucketing, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as uisp_get_site_statistics or uisp_get_network_statistics. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.