get_trafficRetrieve rx/tx byte totals for every active network interface to monitor Keenetic router traffic.
Get traffic summary for all active network interfaces (rx/tx bytes)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope (all active interfaces) and return content (rx/tx bytes), which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or failure behavior.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and return data.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should convey return values. It states 'rx/tx bytes' and 'traffic summary for all active network interfaces', which is sufficient for a simple read-only getter, though it omits units or aggregation period.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for parameter meaning, and the empty schema is fully adequate.
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?
States a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'traffic summary', with scope 'all active network interfaces' and data fields 'rx/tx bytes'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_interfaces, which could also return interface data, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description states what it returns but not when to choose it over sibling tools such as get_interfaces or get_system_info, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.