Meraki MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: organizations, devices, firmware upgrades at org/network level, licenses, and networks. The only potentially confusing pair (get vs update firmware) is clearly separated by verb and scope, leaving no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb-first camelCase pattern: 'get' for read operations and 'update' for the single write operation. The pattern is uniformly applied across resources, with no mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
The server has 6 tools, which is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a meaningful aspect of the Meraki domain, and the set feels neither sparse nor bloated.
Completeness4/5
The server covers core organization-level reads (orgs, networks, devices, firmware, licenses) and one update for network firmware. Minor gaps exist, such as no per-network device listing or create/delete operations, but these are acceptable for a focused read-heavy server.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or read-only nature. The description only says 'Get firmware upgrade information' with no additional behavioral context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it may be too minimal to fully contextualize the tool.
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?
Despite having 6 parameters including pagination tokens and filters, the description provides no context about these features. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing explanation of the tool's scope and behavior.
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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Get firmware upgrade information') and the target resource ('for an organization'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools such as updateNetworkFirmwareUpgrades and getOrganizationDevices.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is a standalone statement with no context about when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update firmware upgrade information', which implies mutation but does not mention required permissions, whether changes are additive or destructive, reversibility, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with complex nested parameters.
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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is not wordy, and every word contributes value. However, it is slightly under-specified (e.g., 'information' could be more concrete), so it does not earn a 5.
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 tool's complexity (nested objects for 10 product types, upgrade windows, timezone) and the presence of only 'get' siblings, the description is far too minimal. It does not mention that products, timezone, and upgradeWindow can be configured, nor does it relate to getOrganizationFirmwareUpgrades. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks the contextual completeness expected for such a rich tool.
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%, and the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for parameters such as products (with per-device nextUpgrade and beta release settings), timezone, upgradeWindow, and networkId. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (update) and resource (firmware upgrade information) for a network. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which are all 'get' operations, so the purpose is unambiguous. However, 'firmware upgrade information' is somewhat generic and could be more specific about the settings involved (e.g., products, upgrade window, beta participation).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include getOrganizationFirmwareUpgrades, which could be a prerequisite for choosing an upgrade version, but the description does not mention this or any other usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the networks are limited to those the user has privileges on, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'list'. Significant behavioral details are left to the schema.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more informative about the tool's scope without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite having an output schema and a fully documented input schema, the high-level description is too bare. It does not mention that the tool supports filtering by tags, product types, or config templates, nor does it hint at pagination. For a tool with 9 parameters, the description fails to set expectations about its capabilities.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema thoroughly documents all 9 parameters including filters, pagination tokens, and defaults. The tool description does not need to repeat this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('networks') within an organization, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getOrganizationDevices or getOrganizations. It unambiguously states what the tool does.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or cross-references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the scope (devices assigned to a network) but omits important behaviors like pagination, filtering capabilities, read-only nature, or any prerequisites. The extensive parameter list implies pagination and filtering, but these are not disclosed in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has 18 parameters and an output schema, the description itself is minimal. The schema and output schema carry most of the contextual detail. The description adds only the 'assigned to a network' scope. This is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks guidance on how to effectively use the many filters and pagination features, making it only minimally complete for a complex tool.
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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each of the 18 parameters. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'devices in an organization that have been assigned to a network.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list networks, organizations, or licenses, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getOrganizationNetworks or getOrganizationFirmwareUpgrades. The description states what it does but offers no contextual hints about preferable use cases, filtering scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 only says 'Return an overview' without mentioning safety, permissions, rate limits, or what the overview contains. This is minimal and fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic return action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, making it extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states the core function but does not explain what the overview includes or any edge cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to detail return values, but the description still lacks nuance that could help an agent fully anticipate behavior.
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?
The schema describes the only parameter (organizationId) fully, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Return an overview of the license state') and clearly ties it to an organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getOrganizationDevices or getOrganizationNetworks, which target different resources.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but leaves the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists organizations but does not mention pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every component contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit pagination context, but the schema covers the parameters. Overall, sufficient for a straightforward list tool.
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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the organizations that the user has privileges on' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like getOrganizationNetworks and getOrganizationDevices. The scope 'that the user has privileges on' adds clarity.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (to list organizations the user can access) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is clear from the description and sibling names, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meraki-mcp-server-testing MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dipeshmaindolia001/meraki-mcp-server-testing/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dipeshmaindolia001/meraki-mcp-server-testing)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meraki-mcp-server-testing MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dipeshmaindolia001/meraki-mcp-server-testing/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dipeshmaindolia001/meraki-mcp-server-testing)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dipeshmaindolia001/meraki-mcp-server-testing'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server