Retrieve MikroTik simple queues to monitor bandwidth limits. Filter by name, target, or disabled status for quick troubleshooting.
Lists simple queues on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| invalid_only | No | ||
| disabled_only | No | ||
| target_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 adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are present, and 'Lists' is consistent with them, but no additional traits (e.g., pagination, filtering behavior) are disclosed.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list operation, especially given the presence of an output schema and read-only annotations. However, it omits any mention of filtering options (name_filter, target_filter, etc.) that the schema exposes, leaving a gap for agents that need to understand invocation context.
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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of the parameters or their semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter context.
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 lists simple queues on a MikroTik device, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_simple_queue (single item) and list_queue_trees (different resource type).
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_simple_queue, nor does it mention filtering or intended scenarios. It simply states what it does without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.