Retrieve all SSH keys associated with a specific MikroTik user account to verify access credentials or audit key-based authentication settings.
Lists SSH keys for a specific user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| username | Yes |
| 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 safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'specific user' scope, which is useful but not extensive; it does not mention return format, pagination, or how the device parameter affects the operation. This meets the baseline but adds limited behavioral context beyond 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
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 tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the description omits any mention of the device parameter, which is part of the input schema and may be essential in multi-device environments. The required username is implied by 'specific user' but not explicitly mapped. Given these gaps, the description is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The phrase 'specific user' hints at the required 'username' parameter, but it never names it and completely ignores the 'device' parameter. Without additional detail, the agent cannot determine how to supply parameters correctly, especially the optional device field.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('SSH keys') with a target ('for a specific user'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like remove_user_ssh_key and set_user_ssh_keys. It aligns with the title and annotations, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.
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 usage (call when you need to view SSH keys for a user) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools (e.g., get_user, list_users, set_user_ssh_keys). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent gets minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.