Retrieve details for a specific MikroTik user group by name. Use this to inspect group permissions and settings when managing router access.
Gets detailed information about a specific user group.
| 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, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal context beyond 'specific' group, without detailing output format, error conditions, or any special behavior. It does not contradict the 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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the core purpose without redundancy.
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 get operation with output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks guidance on the optional 'device' parameter and how this tool differs from list_user_groups. It does not explain when to use this vs. listing all groups, leaving some gaps for the agent.
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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter or the optional 'device' parameter. It only hints at group identification via 'specific user group,' leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.
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 ('detailed information about a specific user group'), clearly indicating it retrieves details for a single group. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_groups (which lists all groups) and add/update/remove operations.
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 it should be used when a specific user group's details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The presence of list_user_groups suggests a contrast, but no explicit guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.