Summarize Wi-Fi events over a chosen time window and location, showing totals by severity, category, and type plus frequent and recent high-severity events for troubleshooting.
Summarize events in a time window: totals by severity, category and type, the most frequent summaries, and the latest high-severity events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-back window in hours (default 24) | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape (totals by severity, category, type, most frequent summaries, latest high-severity events), and the read-only nature is evident from "summarize," but it never states cardinality limits (how many "most frequent" or "latest" items), the severity threshold used, or whether results are truncated or paginated.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the operation, then the enumerated return content — no filler or repetition. The enumeration is long but each item is substantive information an agent can act on.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates what comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs for a two-parameter read-only aggregation tool. It falls short only on limits and threshold specifics, which for a summary tool are meaningful but secondary.
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 coverage is 100%, so hours (default 24) and location_id (subtree scoping) are already fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description mentions a "time window" but adds no unit, default, or scoping semantics beyond what the schema already says, and it never references the location subtree filter.
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 gives a specific verb (summarize) and resource (events) and enumerates the four output groupings, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, cvcue_query_events, which appears to return raw event records rather than aggregates.
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 word "Summarize" plus the aggregate outputs imply this is the overview/rollup tool versus the raw listing siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it, when not to, or which alternative to use. Usage has to be inferred from the framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.