List WireGuard interfaces on a MikroTik router with optional name, running, and disabled filters to inspect VPN connection status.
Lists WireGuard interfaces on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| running_only | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic read operation. It does not disclose whether disabled interfaces are included, how many results are returned, or any filtering defaults. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, which makes it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity omits valuable context that could help an agent make an informed decision.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return-value details are covered. However, the description omits any mention of the optional filters (name_filter, running_only, disabled_only) or the device parameter, leaving an incomplete picture for the agent, especially when multiple optional parameters are available.
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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. Parameter names like name_filter, running_only, and disabled_only are somewhat inferable, but the meaning of device=null and the relationship between running_only and disabled_only are left entirely to the schema.
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 ('WireGuard interfaces') on the MikroTik device, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_interfaces or get_wireguard_interface. However, it does not explicitly mention whether it lists all interfaces or if any default scoping applies.
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_wireguard_interface or list_interfaces. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use-case scenarios described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.