Retrieve WireGuard peer details from a MikroTik device, filtering by interface or disabled-only state to identify active or disabled VPN peers.
Lists WireGuard peers on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| disabled_only | 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?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't disclose additional context like default parameter behavior or filtering semantics. Since the output schema exists, return format is covered, but the description is minimal.
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 fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could include useful details like filtering options without becoming verbose.
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 covers the basic purpose and is backed by good annotations and an output schema, making it adequate for a simply list operation. However, it leaves parameter semantics and usage guidance unaddressed, so it is not fully complete for an agent that needs to understand filters and when to use the 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?
The input schema has three parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The parameter names (device, disabled_only, interface_filter) give partial hints, but the description adds no semantic meaning to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 WireGuard peers on the MikroTik device, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get_wireguard_peer by being a plural list operation, though it doesn't explicitly say 'all' or mention filtering.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_wireguard_peer or other peer management tools. The name implies listing, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.