mikrotik_dhcp_leasesList DHCP server leases with IP, MAC, hostname, and status, optionally filtered to a single DHCP server.
List DHCP server leases (IP, MAC, hostname, status), optionally for one DHCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return (default 200). | |
| device | No | Name of the configured device. Defaults to the first device (see mikrotik_list_devices). | |
| server | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description usefully enumerates the returned fields but says nothing about pagination limits, whether dynamic/static leases are both included, or behavior when a device/server is unreachable. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that gives the resource, the returned fields, and the optional scoping filter with zero filler.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description appropriately names the returned fields, which the structured data does not provide. Minor gaps remain around pagination defaults and error behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 67%; device and limit are well documented in the schema. The undocumented `server` parameter is partially compensated by "optionally for one DHCP server," but neither source explains the expected identifier format or what happens if the server name is unknown.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (list DHCP leases) and names the returned fields (IP, MAC, hostname, status), which distinguishes it from mikrotik_arp_table and mikrotik_ip_addresses by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it isn't a full 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?
The phrase "optionally for one DHCP server" hints at when to pass the server filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus mikrotik_arp_table, mikrotik_ip_addresses, or generic mikrotik_print. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.