Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Ping

ping
Read-onlyIdempotent

Send ICMP echo requests from a MikroTik router to a target address and return per-packet RTT plus summary statistics, including 100% packet loss as a valid result.

Instructions

Send ICMP echo requests from the router to a target address. Returns per-packet RTT and summary statistics. 100% packet loss is a valid result, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoPacket size in bytes (14–65535)
countNoNumber of ICMP echo requests (1–20)
addressYesTarget IP address or hostname to ping
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
routingTableNoRouting table to use for the ping

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / routingTable / $ref
      Added value: +"#/properties/address"
    • removedInput schema / properties / routingTable / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • 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",
-  "address"
-]New value: +[
+  "address"
+]
  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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that 100% packet loss is a valid result, not an error, and by describing the return of per-packet RTT and summary statistics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return behavior and an important error-handling note. No wasted words or redundant restatement.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essential return format and packet-loss semantics. It is nearly complete, though it omits minor operational details such as timeout or DNS failure behavior.

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 five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making a baseline score appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sending ICMP echo requests from the router to a target address. The use of 'ICMP echo requests' clearly separates it from siblings like traceroute and bandwidth_test.

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 description implies a connectivity diagnostic use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as traceroute. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose, but routing guidance is absent.

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