Retrieve OMP service routes known to a specific device, including VPN, firewall, and IDS services, by supplying the device ID or system IP.
Get OMP service routes (VPN, firewall, IDS, etc.) known to a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | Device ID or system-ip |
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 burden; 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical enumerates which service types are returned, which is useful behavioral context. It still says nothing about the response shape, volume of data, or any device-reachability prerequisite (e.g. whether the device must be online).
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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase (including the parenthetical) carries information.
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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the bar is low and the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. It is not complete enough to route between this and the dense cluster of get_omp_* siblings, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('Device ID or system-ip'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds only the implicit scoping that this identifier selects the device whose services are reported, which is marginal 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OMP service routes') scoped to a device, and clarifies with parenthetical examples (VPN, firewall, IDS) what 'services' means. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many near-identical siblings such as get_omp_routes, get_omp_peers, or get_omp_tlocs.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetch OMP service route data for a given device. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when get_omp_routes (the closest sibling) would be the better choice instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.