API - Get Org client Search

RaphaelL
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

API - Get Org client Search

Hi ,

 

Does anyone know how far back can this API call  go ?:  /organizations/{organizationId}/clients/search

https://developer.cisco.com/meraki/api-v1/#!get-organization-clients-search

 

I have found a Client from a month ago ( first seen in december , last seen 2 days ago  ) but I was wondering what was the limit. It is usually documented in the API documentation , but it is not. 

 

Thanks , 

3 Replies 3
AutomationDude
Building a reputation

Hey Raphael,

 

Not 100% sure about the limit for this API call but I would guess its the same as the other client level endpoints, which is one month back.

RaphaelL
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

that was also my guess. It seems that it is 1 month on the first seen : 

firstSeen UTC : 2021-12-07 17:45:44
lastSeen UTC : 2022-01-13 11:39:20

 

Since I have a ''first seen'' > 30 days, It should be on the last seen

Luke01
Here to help

We have a custom app that uses the Meraki API v1 (Get Organization Clients Search).  When we make API call, there seems to be missing items (e.g. "networks") inside the "records" array.  My laptop has connected to 4 networks, in last week, but I always only see 3 "network" item max inside the "records" array.  Does anyone have extra details about the REST endpoint?

 

1) What is the logic when building the "records" array?

2) Is there a limit of items that can be returned inside the "records" array?

3) What is purpose with query param "perPage"?  When I changed it, nothing happens.

3) Is there any additional query params that are not documented on the website?

Get Organization Clients Search - Meraki Dashboard API v1 - Cisco Meraki Developer Hub

 

My end goal to retrieve all networks that a specific client has connected in the past.

 

 

 

When I connected to 4 or more devices, the API response only contains a max of 3 "records" items.  I would have expected 4 network items

Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.