Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Traceroute

traceroute
Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace the network path from a router to a target IP or hostname, returning an ordered hop list with RTT per hop to diagnose connectivity and latency issues.

Instructions

Trace the network path from the router to a target address. Returns an ordered hop list with RTT per hop. Timeouts and partial results are valid responses. Not auto-retried.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoProbes per hop (1–5)
addressYesTarget IP address or hostname to trace
maxHopsNoMaximum number of hops (1–30)
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+]
  2. Addedv1.5.0
  3. Removedv1.1.0
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: timeouts and partial results are valid outcomes and the operation is not auto-retried. It doesn't discuss the per-hop latency ranges or which router is used beyond 'the router', but the timeout/retry guidance is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by return format and behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only diagnostic with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the return shape ('ordered hop list with RTT') and the key edge case (timeouts/partial results). It could note the default-router behavior for routerId more explicitly, but it is essentially complete.

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%, with count, maxHops and routerId all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about probe counts, hop limits, or routerId selection, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Trace the network path from the router to a target address,' and the mention of an 'ordered hop list with RTT per hop' clearly differentiates it from a simple reachability tool like ping. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 only implied by the diagnostic verb 'trace' and the presence of ping among siblings; the description never states when to prefer traceroute over ping or run_command, nor any prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves routing decisions to the agent's 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