Retrieve detailed information about a specific MikroTik simple queue by name, including its configuration and current data for network management and diagnostics.
Gets detailed information about a specific simple queue.
| 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=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond saying it returns details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that earns its place. No filler or redundant information.
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?
Despite minimal description, the tool is simple, with only two string parameters and one required. The annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior, and an output schema exists. The description, while terse, is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over its siblings.
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 compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'device' parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics.
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 the resource 'detailed information about a specific simple queue.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_simple_queues by emphasizing a specific queue rather than listing all queues.
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 used when you need details about one known simple queue, in contrast to list_simple_queues for enumeration. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.