Retrieves VLAN interfaces from a MikroTik router, with optional filters for name, VLAN ID, parent interface, or disabled state.
Lists VLAN interfaces on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| disabled_only | No | ||
| vlan_id_filter | 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'on the MikroTik device' context but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or filter semantics. It does not contradict 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, but the description only states the basic listing action. It omits mention of filter capabilities (name, VLAN ID, interface, disabled state) which are essential for effective use. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics are underspecified, leaving the description incomplete for a moderately complex list tool.
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% for the 5 parameters (device, name_filter, disabled_only, vlan_id_filter, interface_filter), so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's bare property names.
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 action ('Lists') and the resource ('VLAN interfaces') with context ('on the MikroTik device'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vlan_interface (singular lookup) and create/update/remove VLAN interface operations.
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 this tool to list VLAN interfaces. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_interfaces for all interfaces or get_vlan_interface for a single VLAN), and it does not mention the available filters. The usage context is clear but minimally elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.