Retrieve OMP routes received or advertised by a device, and filter results by VPN ID or exact prefix to narrow route output.
Get OMP routes received or advertised by a device. Filter by VPN and/or prefix to limit output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | Filter by exact prefix (e.g. 10.10.116.1/32) | |
| vpn_id | No | Filter by service VPN ID (e.g. 10) | |
| device_id | Yes | Device ID or system-ip | |
| direction | No | Route direction (default: received) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and notes that direction can be received or advertised, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, permissions, or other behavioral traits.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the filtering note follows naturally.
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 query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to identify and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is the absence of any return-value or output-format context, though that is mitigated by the lack of an output schema.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented. The description adds a brief note about using VPN and prefix filters but does not add meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb and resource: get OMP routes for a device, with received/advertised scope. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling route-related tools such as get_bgp_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?
It mentions filtering by VPN and/or prefix to limit output, which implies when to use those parameters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_bgp_routes or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.