Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage Netwatch Entry

manage_netwatch_entry
DestructiveIdempotent

Add, remove, enable, or disable MikroTik RouterOS Netwatch monitoring entries by host and port to track device and service availability.

Instructions

Add, remove, enable, or disable a Netwatch monitoring entry. Idempotent by host+port: add returns already_exists if an entry with the same host and port already exists.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHost to monitor — idempotency key
portNoTCP port (optional; ICMP if omitted)
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
commentNoOptional comment
timeoutNoProbe timeout (e.g. '500ms')
intervalNoCheck interval (e.g. '1m'; default '1m')
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. 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",
-  "host"
-]New value: +[
+  "action",
+  "host"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0
  4. Removedv1.1.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by naming the idempotency key (host+port) and the concrete return contract (already_exists on duplicate add), which is genuinely useful extra context. It does not, however, surface the confirmation-token/APPROVAL_REQUIRED flow that governs destructive actions, which lives only in the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action list is front-loaded and the idempotency constraint follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully discloses the return semantics for the add case (already_exists). For a destructive 9-parameter management tool it is nearly complete, though the destructive-confirmation behavior is only discoverable via the schema parameter rather than the description.

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 9 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the host+port idempotency relationship, matching the baseline for a fully documented schema rather than adding meaning beyond it.

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 set of verbs (add, remove, enable, disable) applied to a specific resource (a Netwatch monitoring entry), which cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling list_netwatch_entries. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated action values and the idempotency note, but the description never explicitly states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use list_netwatch_entries to inspect, or apply_plan/bulk_execute for batched changes). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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