tailscale-blade-mcp

ts_device_routes

Retrieve advertised subnets and approval status for a device by its node ID.

Instructions

Routes for a device: advertised subnets, approved/unapproved status.

Emits a DD-338 _meta envelope (audit_surface: structured) disclosing the device_id= server-side discrimination + the routes-row cardinality (advertised + enabled, union).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "ts_device_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_id`	Yes	Device nodeId (from ts_devices)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions emitting a _meta envelope with device_id and cardinality, which provides transparency about output metadata. However, it does not mention any prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a technical detail about the output envelope. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and metadata format. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but for a simple lookup tool this is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter (device_id) has a description in the schema: 'Device nodeId (from ts_devices).' The description in the text does not add further details, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, with slight extra context from 'from ts_devices'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Routes for a device: advertised subnets, approved/unapproved status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ts_approve_routes (which modifies routes) and ts_device (which retrieves device details).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool returns but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like ts_approve_routes or ts_device. Some context is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.