Skip to main content
Glama
mhajder

librenms-mcp

by mhajder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Bill History Graph

bill_history_graph
Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a past billing period as a graph image by providing bill ID, history ID, and graph type. Get a quick visual overview of bandwidth usage; choose the data tool if you need underlying numbers.

Instructions

Render a graph for a past billing period as an image.

For the underlying numbers rather than a picture, use bill_history_graph_data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idYesBill ID
graph_typeYesGraph type: bits, monthly, hour, or day
history_idYesBill history ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.11.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result is an image rather than raw data, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The alternative tool reference is placed second, making the guidance easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and safety-relevant annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool produces (an image), identifies the correct alternative when raw numbers are needed, and all required parameters are documented.

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 each parameter has a description, so the schema carries the param semantics. The description does not add extra meaning to bill_id, history_id, or graph_type, so 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 clearly states 'Render a graph for a past billing period as an image', identifying the specific action, resource, and output type. It also distinguishes itself from bill_history_graph_data by noting the alternative is for underlying numbers rather than a picture.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: 'For the underlying numbers rather than a picture, use bill_history_graph_data.' This gives concrete routing guidance to the relevant sibling and clarifies the intended use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools