remnawave-mcp-server

remnawave_get_node_users_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve historical per-user traffic on a single node, showing daily totals and top users within a date range.

Instructions

Historical per-user traffic on ONE node over a date range (daily totals + top users). Complements remnawave_get_bandwidth_stats (all nodes) and remnawave_get_node_metrics (realtime).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: data is 'historical', aggregated as 'daily totals + top users', and scoped to 'ONE node'. This goes beyond annotations, though it omits details like pagination or data retention.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists complementary tools. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, scope, and alternatives. The input schema covers parameter details. Together with annotations, this provides complete context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes all four parameters (uuid, start, end, top_users_limit) with individual descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 it provides 'historical per-user traffic on ONE node over a date range (daily totals + top users)', which is a specific verb-resource-scope combination. It also explicitly names sibling tools with distinct scopes (all nodes vs. realtime), enabling differentiation.

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 tells when to use this tool (for per-user historical data on one node) and contrasts it with two related tools: remnawave_get_bandwidth_stats (all nodes) and remnawave_get_node_metrics (realtime). This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server