Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage Log Rule

manage_log_rule
DestructiveIdempotent

Add, remove, enable, or disable RouterOS logging rules by topics and log action. Preview changes with dry-run before applying.

Instructions

Add, remove, enable, or disable a RouterOS logging rule. Idempotent by topics+logAction (add → already_exists on match; remove → not_found handled gracefully; enable/disable throw NOT_FOUND when absent). Supports dry-run.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
prefixNoOptional prefix to prepend to log messages
topicsYesLog topics (e.g. firewall, system, info) — idempotency key
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
logActionYesLog action target name (RouterOS action field) — idempotency key
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",
-  "topics",
-  "logAction"
-]New value: +[
+  "action",
+  "topics",
+  "logAction"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it pins the idempotency key to topics+logAction and specifies per-action failure semantics for each mutation. It omits the approval/confirmation flow that the confirmationToken parameter implies, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three dense sentences with the operation list front-loaded and no pad. The parenthetical is information-packed rather than wasteful, though its density slightly reduces scannability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral profile: what it changes, idempotency keys, and per-action error handling. It stops short of explaining the destructive-action approval flow (confirmationToken) or default-router targeting, which the schema partially carries.

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 seven parameters including the topics/logAction idempotency keys and dryRun. The description restates the idempotency-key concept but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 names a precise resource (RouterOS logging rule) and enumerates the four concrete operations (add, remove, enable, disable), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling manage_log_action, leaving the rule-vs-action boundary to inference.

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?

The parenthetical outcomes (already_exists on add, not_found handled on remove, NOT_FOUND on enable/disable) imply when each action path is appropriate, but the description never states when to reach for this tool over siblings like manage_log_action or list_log_rules. Usage is implied rather than 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