Filesystem MCP

monitor_get_network_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve aggregated network I/O counters, per-interface addresses, and interface statistics to monitor connectivity and traffic.

Instructions

Aggregate I/O counters and per-interface addresses and stats.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "result": {"io_counters": {...}, "addresses": {...}, "stats": {...}}}

Examples

monitor_get_network_info()

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "monitor_get_network_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return envelope shape (success/result with io_counters, addresses, stats), which is modest extra context since an output schema already exists.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses headed sections for return format and example, so an agent can scan it quickly. The Return Format block slightly duplicates the output schema but stays compact.

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?

For a no-argument read-only network info tool with both annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It could add one line on when network data is the right choice versus other monitor_* tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The example call with empty parentheses correctly reinforces that no arguments are accepted.

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?

Names a specific verb ('aggregate') and resource ('I/O counters, per-interface addresses and stats'), making clear it is the network-monitoring sibling among monitor_get_* tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource naming is specific enough to distinguish.

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?

The description states what the tool returns but never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. monitor_get_performance_metrics vs monitor_get_system_status) to prefer. An agent must infer that this is the network-specific monitoring call.

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