Modify an existing MikroTik user's password, group, or other settings to update their access permissions directly from n8n.
Updates a user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| group | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| disabled | No | ||
| new_name | No | ||
| password | 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?
The description provides no behavioral information beyond the verb 'updates.' The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no additional context about partial update semantics, the requirement that the user exists, or consequences of omitting optional fields.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters. It essentially restates the tool name and offers no additional information, so it does not earn its place.
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 complexity of 8 parameters and a sparse schema, the description is far too minimal. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description still fails to provide any usage context, such as which fields are updatable or how the operation behaves.
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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not discuss any parameters. The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient for fields like 'device', 'address', and 'new_name'.
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 identifies the action (updates) and the resource (a user), distinguishing it from creation, retrieval, or deletion tools. However, it is terse and doesn't elaborate on what specific user properties can be modified, though the schema enumerates them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_user, get_user, remove_user, or update_user_group. The description is a single sentence with no context for prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.