List NAT rules and port forwards in evaluation order. Filter by srcnat or dstnat chain, with optional verbose details for MikroTik firewall management.
List NAT rules, including port forwards, in evaluation order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | 'srcnat' or 'dstnat'. | |
| verbose | 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 establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does so by noting that rules are returned in evaluation order, which is especially relevant for NAT matching, and by clarifying that port forwards are included. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, scope, and evaluation-order detail are all present and nothing else is wasted.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the core context is covered: what is listed, the scope, and the ordering. The lack of parameter guidance and usage routing is a minor gap, but the low complexity and existing structured metadata make the definition mostly complete.
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 description does not mention chain or verbose, and with only 50% schema coverage the burden was on the description to clarify them. The schema documents chain as 'srcnat' or 'dstnat', so that parameter is recoverable, but the description adds no meaning about how filtering or verbosity affects the output.
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 the operation explicitly ('List NAT rules') and adds two distinguishing details: scope ('including port forwards') and ordering ('in evaluation order'). This separates it from list_firewall_rules and from NAT mutation siblings like add_nat_rule.
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 implies read-only enumeration of NAT configuration but gives no explicit direction on when to choose this tool over list_firewall_rules or the NAT mutation tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.