Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List IPSec Policies

list_ipsec_policies
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve IPSec policies from a MikroTik router, optionally filtering by source or destination address. Use this to audit active policies and troubleshoot VPN connectivity.

Instructions

List IPSec policies on a MikroTik router.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return.
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
dstAddressNoFilter by destination address (substring match)
srcAddressNoFilter by source address (substring match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum number of policies to return"New value: +"Max results to return."
    • changedInput schema / properties / routerId / description
      Previous value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "routerId"
-]
  2. Addedv1.5.0
  3. Removedv1.1.0
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering behavioral traits. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the resource type. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, no redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a list operation with complete schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention that results are returned as a list, but not critical.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'IPSec policies' with scope 'on a MikroTik router'. It effectively conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_ipsec_peers.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., manage_ipsec_policy for modifications). There is no mention of use cases or conditions.

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