Retrieve OMP TLOC routes that a device receives or advertises, with optional direction and color filters for SD-WAN control-plane analysis.
Get OMP TLOC routes received or advertised by a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | Filter by TLOC color (e.g. mpls, biz-internet) | |
| device_id | Yes | Device ID or system-ip | |
| direction | No | TLOC 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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only query, but there's no mention of permissions, whether it hits a live device, throttling, or the shape of the result — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 compact sentence with the key scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it errs toward under-specification.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the returned structure, count, or format. Combined with no annotations and no alternative routing, an agent lacks enough context to know what to expect back or when this is the right call.
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 three parameters (color, device_id, direction) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own wording, so baseline 3 applies.
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) plus the resource (OMP TLOC routes) and the scope (received or advertised by a device). It's clear what data is returned, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_device_tloc or get_omp_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 on when to use this versus get_device_tloc, get_omp_routes, or get_bfd_tloc, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer selection purely from the name and the 'received or advertised' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.