Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage Bridge Interface

manage_bridge
DestructiveIdempotent

Create or remove a MikroTik bridge interface, with idempotent create checks and dry-run preview, for safe router bridge automation.

Instructions

Create or remove a bridge interface on a MikroTik router. Idempotent: create returns already_exists if bridge with same name exists.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBridge interface name, taken verbatim for remove; create accepts letters, digits, dot, hyphen, underscore, up to 64 chars
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
commentNoOptional comment
disabledNoWhether the bridge should be disabled
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
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. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.16.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Bridge interface name"New value: +"Bridge interface name, taken verbatim for remove; create accepts letters, digits, dot, hyphen, underscore, up to 64 chars"
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Removed value: -15
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / pattern
      Removed value: -"^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Previous value: -"Preview changes without applying"New value: +"Preview changes without applying."
    • 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",
-  "action",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "action",
+  "name"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0
  4. Removedv1.1.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful idempotency detail: create returns already_exists when the bridge name already exists. Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description does not mention the destructive confirmation/approval flow or dry-run behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the idempotency caveat immediately following. No filler.

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 an annotated, fully described schema, the description covers the operation and the key idempotency behavior. It omits the confirmation-token workflow for destructive actions, but that is documented in the schema and annotations.

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 all seven parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the name-based idempotency behavior and does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb pair and resource: create or remove a bridge interface on a MikroTik router. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_bridges and manage_bridge_port.

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?

It indicates the available actions but does not explain when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as list_bridges or manage_bridge_port, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions.

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