Lists MikroTik queue trees, applying filters by name, parent, disabled, or invalid status to identify configuration issues.
Lists queue trees on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| invalid_only | No | ||
| disabled_only | No | ||
| parent_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?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true) and does not contradict them. However, it offers no additional behavioral details—no mention of default operation, effect of optional filters, pagination, or ordering. An agent would need to infer any behavior beyond the simple list action.
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, well-phrased sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for a list operation, although it sacrifices detail.
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 tool with five optional filters and no parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. The output schema may document return values, but the description does not indicate whether the tool returns all queue trees by default, how filters combine, or any constraints on the device parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to guess.
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 adds no explanation of the five parameters. Parameter names like name_filter and parent_filter are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their permitted values or how invalid_only/disabled_only affect results, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
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 specifies a clear action ('Lists') and a precise resource ('queue trees') on the MikroTik device. It distinguishes from siblings by using a plural form and the verb 'list', though it does not explicitly reference alternative tools. The main gap is the lack of mention that it returns multiple items or supports filtering.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to choose this tool over get_queue_tree, list_simple_queues, or other list operations, nor does it mention the filter parameters that shape results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.