Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage User Group

manage_user_group
DestructiveIdempotent

Add, update, or remove RouterOS user groups using a name as the idempotency key. Apply policies, preview with dry-run, and confirm destructive actions safely.

Instructions

Add, update, or remove a local RouterOS user group. Idempotent by name: add returns already_exists if a group with the same name and policy already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesGroup name — idempotency key
skinNoOptional skin name for the group
actionYesAction to perform
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
policyNoComma-separated policy list (e.g. 'read,write,ftp')
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 changedv1.8.0
    • 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and destructiveness. The description adds the idempotency detail (already_exists response) but doesn't disclose prerequisites for removal or the need for confirmation tokens, which are implied by the schema but not explained.

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 sentences cover purpose and key behavioral trait. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers CRUD and idempotency but omits details about the confirmationToken parameter and explicit side effects of removal. With an output schema absent, the return behavior for actions other than add is unclear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description reinforces idempotency by name but adds minimal extra meaning beyond parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the verb (add/update/remove) and resource (local RouterOS user group), and distinguishes from siblings like list_user_groups by specifying CRUD operations and idempotency behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for managing user groups, and the sibling list_user_groups provides an alternative for listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to other manage tools.

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