Retrieve every field and live counters for a single MikroTik firewall rule by specifying its rule ID. Provides full rule details for precise configuration and monitoring.
Every field of one firewall rule, including counters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | The rule 'id' from list_firewall_rules, e.g. '*7'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific detail that counters are included, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose pagination, performance characteristics, or any additional behavioral quirks, but given the annotations, the burden is lower.
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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the essential information and no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is mostly sufficient. It tells the agent it returns all fields of one rule including counters. It does not explicitly mention that the output is a single object, but that is implied by 'one firewall rule'. The presence of an output schema fills any gaps about return structure.
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 100% and the parameter rule_id has a clear description ('The rule id from list_firewall_rules, e.g. *7'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, which already provides the necessary context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Every field of one firewall rule, including counters' – a specific resource (firewall rule) and scope (all fields) with a distinguishing detail (counters). It clearly separates this from list_firewall_rules (which lists many) and mutation tools. The verb is implied by the name, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the parameter description for rule_id says 'The rule id from list_firewall_rules', which implies the typical workflow: first list rules to get an ID, then fetch full details. This is helpful but not explicit about when to choose this over list_firewall_rules or other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.