Retrieve detailed configuration and status for a named MikroTik queue tree to inspect its bandwidth limits, targets, and traffic shaping rules.
Gets detailed information about a specific queue tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose error behavior, missing-queue handling, or permission requirements. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them.
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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?
The tool is a simple read-only getter with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The required 'name' parameter and annotations provide sufficient structural information. It could mention the need for an existing queue tree name, but the schema already communicates this requirement.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It fails to mention that 'name' is the queue tree identifier or clarify the role of 'device'. The description adds no value beyond what the schema's types and required flag already show.
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 uses a specific verb 'Gets' and resource 'queue tree', clearly distinguishing it from listing, creating, updating, or deleting queue trees. It also emphasizes 'a specific' queue tree, which aligns with the retrieval semantics.
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 implies this tool is for fetching details about one queue tree, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over list_queue_trees or other alternatives. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned, leaving the usage guidance merely implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.