Summarizes currently connected Wi-Fi clients by SSID, AP, band, OS, vendor, and signal quality, and flags poor-performing clients for troubleshooting; optionally scoped to a location subtree.
Rollup of currently connected clients: totals by SSID, AP, protocol/band, OS, vendor and signal-quality bucket, plus clients with poor performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location_id | No | Scope to a location subtree |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result includes totals across several dimensions and clients with poor performance, and that the scope is currently connected clients, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or how 'poor performance' is defined.
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 redundant wording. It efficiently lists the aggregation dimensions and the poor-performance inclusion without padding.
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?
For a summary tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a fair job of naming the output aggregates. However, it leaves 'poor performance' undefined and does not clarify the return structure or safety profile, so it is only adequately complete.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single location_id parameter, including the meaning 'Scope to a location subtree'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.
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 states a specific resource and operation: a rollup of currently connected clients, broken down by SSID, AP, protocol/band, OS, vendor, signal quality, and poor performance. This is clear enough to distinguish it from listing or finding individual clients, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as cvcue_list_clients or cvcue_ap_health_summary.
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?
Usage is implied by terms like 'rollup' and 'clients with poor performance', suggesting an aggregate health overview rather than per-client lookup. However, the description does not say when to use this tool versus cvcue_list_clients, cvcue_network_health, or cvcue_ap_health_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.