Retrieve detailed information about a specific MikroTik route by providing its route ID. Get route attributes directly from the router for monitoring or troubleshooting.
Gets detailed information about a specific route.
Notes: route_id: "*N" or "N" from list output e.g. "*3"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| route_id | Yes |
| 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, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the route_id format clarification, but does not disclose other behavior like error cases or whether the route must exist. It neither confirms nor contradicts annotations.
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 extremely concise, with a clear main sentence and a separate note that is directly useful. Every word earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple get operation. It provides the required parameter format, but could benefit from a brief mention of device usage or distinguishing from get_routing_table.
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 description explains the route_id parameter format ('*N' or 'N' from list output) which compensates for the 0% schema coverage for that parameter. However, the device parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a gap.
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 clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('detailed information about a specific route'), distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like list_routes and get_routing_table.
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 note about route_id coming 'from list output' provides context that the user should first list routes, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_routing_table or list_routes. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.