Disable a specific interface on a MikroTik device by entering its exact name (e.g., ether1, bridge). Stop traffic or deactivate a connection quickly and reliably.
Disables an interface on the MikroTik device.
Notes: name: exact interface name e.g. "ether1", "bridge", "pppoe-out1"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the operation itself, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence plus a compact, useful parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple toggle operation, annotations, and output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks explanation of the 'device' parameter and does not clarify scope relative to disable_wireless_interface, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The note for 'name' adds useful meaning by specifying exact interface name with examples, which the schema lacks. However, the optional 'device' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a clear gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Disables an interface on the MikroTik device,' giving a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling disable_wireless_interface, though the note examples (ether1, bridge, pppoe-out1) imply general non-wireless interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus enable_interface or disable_wireless_interface. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.