Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage Log Action

manage_log_action
DestructiveIdempotent

Add or remove RouterOS logging action targets by name, with idempotent validation and dry-run previews.

Instructions

Add or remove a RouterOS logging action target. Idempotent by name. add throws VALIDATION if type is missing; returns already_exists if name found. remove returns not_found gracefully. Supports dry-run.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesLog action name — idempotency key
typeNoAction type: memory, disk, remote, echo, email (required on add)
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
remoteNoRemote syslog server address (for type=remote)
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
remotePortNoRemote syslog server port (for type=remote)
diskFileNameNoDisk log file name without extension (for type=disk)
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. 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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: idempotency semantics, VALIDATION error on missing type, already_exists return, not_found graceful handling for remove, and dry-run support. Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description clarifies the exact failure/success modes.

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?

Tight, front-loaded phrasing. The first sentence states purpose; subsequent clauses deliver error/idempotency/dry-run facts with 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 a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral gaps (error modes, idempotency, dry-run). The confirmationToken/APPROVAL_REQUIRED flow is only documented in the schema, not the description, but that is adequately covered there.

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 parameters including type requirements and dryRun. The description reinforces that type is required on add, but adds little 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?

Clear specific verb pair (add/remove) and resource (RouterOS logging action target), immediately distinguishable from siblings like manage_log_rule and list_log_actions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Describes internal behavior branches (add vs remove) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over manage_log_rule or how it relates to the listing sibling. Usage context is implied by the action parameter, not stated.

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