Lists all IPv4 addresses configured on a MikroTik router along with the interface each is assigned to, for quick network configuration checks.
List configured IPv4 addresses and the interfaces they sit on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds modest context by specifying 'configured' addresses, implying persistent configuration rather than dynamic or transient data. No behavioral disclaimer beyond what annotations provide is included, which is acceptable given the simple listing nature.
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 conveys both the primary purpose and the key output relationship. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
Given the tool's zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Nothing important 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are required and the tool schema is empty.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('configured IPv4 addresses'), and clarifies the relationship to interfaces ('and the interfaces they sit on'). This clearly sets it apart from siblings like list_interfaces and list_routes.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The only implied signal is the tool name and the description's phrasing, which is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.