Retrieve detailed configuration and status for a named VLAN interface on MikroTik routers. Specify the interface name to get its properties and operational data.
Gets detailed information about a specific VLAN interface.
| 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 convey readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds only that it returns 'detailed information,' which is minimal extra context. It does not disclose behavior on missing resources or permissions, but given the annotations and output schema, this is acceptable.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.
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 straightforward read-only getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter explanation, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the rich structured data present.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While 'specific VLAN interface' implies the 'name' parameter identifies the interface, it fails to mention the optional 'device' parameter or provide any format/selection details. The description offers only slightly more insight than the bare schema.
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 tool's action: 'Gets detailed information' on a 'specific VLAN interface.' The verb 'Gets' is a read operation, and referring to a 'specific' interface distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vlan_interfaces. It unambiguously identifies the resource and scope.
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 phrase 'specific VLAN interface' implies this tool is for retrieving details on one interface, as opposed to listing all (list_vlan_interfaces) or creating/modifying. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other 'get' tools (e.g., get_interface) and no alternative names or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.