MikroTik MCP for n8n

update_wireguard_interface

Idempotent

Modify an existing WireGuard interface on a MikroTik router by updating its MTU, listen port, private key, comment, or disabled state, or renaming it.

Instructions

Updates an existing WireGuard interface's settings on the MikroTik device.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mtu`	No
`name`	Yes
`device`	No
`comment`	No
`disabled`	No
`new_name`	No
`listen_port`	No
`private_key`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral details, such as what happens to unspecified fields or permission requirements. Given 8 optional parameters, this lack of context is a gap.

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?

One sentence of 12 words, immediately communicates the core purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 8 parameters and many sibling wireless/interface tools, but the description does not explain parameter usage or selection criteria. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but overall completeness is low for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'settings' generically and lists no parameter meanings, leaving the agent to rely solely on field names and types.

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 clearly states the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'WireGuard interface's settings' on the MikroTik device. It effectively distinguishes from create/remove/enable/disable sibling tools.

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?

The phrase 'existing' implies the tool is for modifying already-created interfaces, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., create_wireguard_interface) or conditions when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server