list_routing_tablesLists custom routing tables on a MikroTik router to help you identify and select the correct table for routing decisions.
List custom routing tables on a MikroTik router.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routerId | No | Router ID; omit to use the default router. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Input schema / properties / routerId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "routerId"
-]v1.5.0v1.1.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the nuance that only 'custom' routing tables are listed, which is beyond annotations but still minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
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-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about the return format but is adequate given the simplicity.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'routerId' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom routing tables on a MikroTik router'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_routes' and 'list_routing_rules'.
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 tool vs alternatives like 'list_routes' or 'list_routing_rules', nor about the optional 'routerId' parameter or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.