bill_getRetrieve a specific bill from LibreNMS by its unique ID. Optionally include the previous period for comparison.
Get a specific bill from LibreNMS by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Optional period=previous | |
| bill_id | Yes | Bill ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation, so it neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and lookup key.
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 simple two-parameter schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. No critical behavioral or parameter context is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents bill_id and period. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'by ID', which matches the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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') with a concrete resource ('a specific bill') and the access method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bills_list, bill_graph, and bill_delete.
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 a clear use case: call this when you have a known bill_id and need a single bill. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'by ID' qualifier provides enough contextual guidance for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.