Retrieve MikroTik device users with filters for active, disabled, name, or group to manage access.
Lists users on MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| active_only | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| group_filter | No | ||
| disabled_only | 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 provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, making the safety profile clear. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context like filtering options, output format, or pagination, providing minimal value 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though it reflects under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.
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?
Despite the output schema and annotations, the description lacks critical usage context, such as when to use it versus get_active_users or get_user. The optional filters are only implied by the schema, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to select correctly.
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 five parameters with descriptive titles and defaults, but the description gives no explanation of any of them. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not.
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 users on a MikroTik device using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_active_users or get_user, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user, get_active_users, or list_user_groups. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.