bill_graph_dataRetrieve LibreNMS billing graph data by bill ID, returning traffic bit rates or monthly transfer totals for the current billing period.
Get bill graph data from LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | Bill ID | |
| graph_type | Yes | Graph type for the current billing period: 'bits' (traffic) or 'monthly' (transfer per month) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.0Input schema / properties / graph_type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Graph type: bits, monthly, hour, or day"New value: +"Graph type for the current billing period: 'bits' (traffic) or 'monthly' (transfer per month)"Input schema / properties / graph_type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "bits",
+ "monthly"
+]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, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note on auth scope, rate limits, or the difference in data returned compared to the other bill graph tools.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, so it is not verbose. However, the one sentence is largely filler ('from LibreNMS' is branding), so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But for a tool sitting in a cluster of confusable bill-graph siblings, the description provides no disambiguation, which is exactly the context an agent needs to select it correctly.
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%: bill_id is documented and graph_type carries an enum with meanings ('bits' traffic vs 'monthly' transfer per month). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 restates the tool's own name and title ('Bill Graph Data' → 'Get bill graph data'), giving no verb-plus-resource detail beyond that. It fails to distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as bill_graph, bill_history_graph, and bill_history_graph_data, leaving the agent unable to tell which graph is returned.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus bill_graph or bill_history_graph, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. With four sibling tools in the same bill/graph family, this silence is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.