Determine the route a MikroTik router selects for a destination address. Verify path selection and troubleshoot connectivity issues.
Checks the route MikroTik would use to reach a destination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| destination | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.4Input schema / properties / routing_markRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Routing Mark"
-}Input schema / properties / sourceRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Source"
-}v0.14.5Input schema / properties / deviceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Device"
+}v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that this checks the route the device 'would use', implying a lookup or simulation rather than a modification, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as error cases, format expectations, or device requirements.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter format details and usage differentiation from route-related siblings, leaving an agent to guess about input expectations and when this tool is preferred.
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 0%, so the text description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does not mention 'device' at all and only vaguely references 'destination', without clarifying whether it should be an IP address, hostname, or network. The parameter names give some clues, but the description adds little beyond them.
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 clear action ('Checks') and resource ('the route MikroTik would use') with a specific target ('to reach a destination'). It conveys the tool's intent well, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_route, get_routing_table, or get_route_cache.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_route or get_routing_table. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over similar route-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.