Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Fetch URL

fetch_url
Destructive

Send HTTP/HTTPS requests from a MikroTik router to retrieve remote data; returns response inline (max 64 KB) or saves to a router file.

Instructions

Send an HTTP/HTTPS request from the router using /tool/fetch. Response body is returned inline (capped at 64 KB with [TRUNCATED] marker). Use outputFile to save to router filesystem instead. Not read-only: POSTs have side effects and outputFile writes to the router.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to fetch from the router
methodNoHTTP methodGET
httpDataNoRequest body for POST
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
outputFileNoSave response body to this router file path instead of returning inline
confirmationTokenNoToken from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / routerId / description
      Previous value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "routerId",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "url"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the 64 KB response cap with a [TRUNCATED] marker, and the reasons for the write profile (POST side effects, outputFile writes). This enriches rather than merely repeats the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return behavior and the write caveat. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by explaining the inline body, its 64 KB cap, and truncation. The confirmationToken approval flow is left entirely to the schema, leaving a small gap for a destructive tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including outputFile's inline-vs-file behavior. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning (the truncation limit tied to inline returns), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send an HTTP/HTTPS request from the router using /tool/fetch') with concrete scope. It is a unique capability in the sibling set, and an agent can identify exactly what it does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear conditional guidance on output handling ('Use outputFile to save to router filesystem instead'), helping the agent choose between inline return and file storage. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling competes for this function, so context is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools