Deletes a specific route from a MikroTik router using its route ID, freeing up routing tables and removing unwanted paths.
Removes a route.
Notes: route_id: "*N" or "N" from list output e.g. "*3"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| route_id | Yes |
| 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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent is aware of the destructive nature. The description adds a route_id format note but does not disclose other behavioral details such as reversibility or impact on related resources. It aligns with 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 two brief sentences with a focused note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes essential parameter guidance without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
With an output schema present and a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the critical route_id semantics and the action. It could be more complete by explaining the device parameter or explicitly stating that list_routes should be used to obtain valid IDs, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates with a substantial note on route_id format ('*N' or 'N' from list output). However, the optional 'device' parameter is not described, so the compensation is incomplete.
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 clearly states the tool removes a route using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling remove tools by naming the resource type directly (route), and the note about route_id format adds specificity.
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?
The note 'from list output' implies the route_id should come from list_routes, providing contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_route or enable_route, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond obtaining the route_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.