Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Upload File

upload_file
Idempotent

Upload a text file to a MikroTik router, overwriting same-name files over SFTP with plaintext FTP fallback; a dry-run checks connectivity only.

Instructions

Upload a text file to a router, overwriting any existing file of the same name. Prefers SFTP (encrypted, over SSH) and falls back to plaintext FTP if SFTP is unavailable. Requires SSH (or FTP) access for the router user. Dry-run tests connectivity only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTarget filename on the router (e.g. flash/my-script.rsc)
dryRunNoValidate SFTP or FTP connectivity without writing the target file
contentYesFile content to upload (text)
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.11.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Previous value: -"Validate FTP connectivity without writing the file"New value: +"Validate SFTP or FTP connectivity without writing the target file"
  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",
-  "name",
-  "content"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "content"
+]
  3. Addedv1.5.0
  4. Removedv1.1.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the overwrite semantics (a destructive-in-effect behavior the destructiveHint=false annotation does not convey), the encrypted-vs-plaintext transport fallback, and the credential requirement. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields alone.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and side effect, then transport behavior, prerequisites, and the dry-run caveat. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description closes the remaining gaps: what it overwrites, how it authenticates/transports, and what dry-run does. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 each of the four parameters already carries its own semantics. The description only reiterates dry-run behavior, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (upload) plus the resource (a text file to a router) and the key side effect (overwriting any existing file of the same name), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_file_content, list_files, and delete_file.

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?

It supplies useful operating context (SFTP-preferred with FTP fallback, required SSH/FTP access, dry-run testing connectivity), but never names an alternative tool or states when to pick this over, say, manage_script, and it gives no explicit exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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