List DHCP servers on a MikroTik router with optional filters for name, interface, disabled, or invalid status.
Lists DHCP servers on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| invalid_only | No | ||
| disabled_only | No | ||
| interface_filter | 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 safe read nature is known. However, the description adds no further behavioral context—such as return format, whether disabled servers are included, or any side effects—so it contributes nothing beyond 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, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to understand how to effectively use filters. The output schema exists but is not visible here, and the description does not mention return values or usage scenarios, making the description insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 5 parameters (device, name_filter, invalid_only, disabled_only, interface_filter). While parameter names hint at their purpose, the description fails to clarify semantics or provide examples, leaving a significant 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 'Lists DHCP servers on the MikroTik device' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (DHCP servers), distinguishing it from related tools like get_dhcp_server (singular) or create_dhcp_server. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with no ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dhcp_server or create_dhcp_server. It does not mention filtering, context for use, or exclusions, leaving the agent without comparison information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.