List DHCP leases from MikroTik RouterOS to identify devices on the network. Filter by hostname, MAC, or IP, or restrict to active leases only.
List DHCP leases — effectively the inventory of what is on the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Case-insensitive match against hostname, MAC or address. | |
| active_only | No |
| 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 description does not need to restate safety. The description adds a little context by framing the result as a network inventory, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as filtering semantics, lease types, or whether only dynamic leases are included.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and adds a helpful mental model. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by noting when to prefer sibling tools or clarifying what 'active_only' filters, but the core context needed to call the tool correctly is present.
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 description coverage is 50%: 'search' is described in the schema, but 'active_only' has no description. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning, though the parameter names and defaults are fairly self-explanatory. With partial schema coverage and no description compensation, this is adequate but not strong.
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 a specific action and resource: 'List DHCP leases', and adds a useful conceptual gloss ('effectively the inventory of what is on the network'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_ip_addresses, so it misses the top score, 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 'inventory of what is on the network' phrasing implies a use case: when you need to see what devices are currently known via DHCP. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools such as list_ip_addresses or list_dns_static, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.