Retrieve detailed BGP neighbor status per VRF, including state, router ID, AS, and prefix stats to monitor or troubleshoot routing on a target device.
[READ] Detailed BGP neighbors per VRF: state, router id, AS, prefix stats.
Args: target: Device name from config; omit to use the default device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the bar for extra behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the '[READ]' marker and lists the data available per VRF, but does not disclose permissions, failure behavior, or any operational side effects.
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 short and front-loaded, starting with the read operation and scope before listing the optional argument. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant filler.
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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly by explaining the default-device behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing relative to get_bgp_neighbors.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that target is a device name from config and that omitting it uses the default device, which is exactly the context needed for the single optional parameter.
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 clear read operation and resource: detailed BGP neighbor information per VRF, including state, router ID, AS, and prefix stats. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_bgp_neighbors, 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?
The description says to omit target to use the default device, which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. It does not say when to use this tool instead of get_bgp_neighbors, bgp_neighbor_rca, or other BGP-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.