mikrotik-mcp

move_firewall_rule

Destructive

Reorder a firewall rule relative to another rule by ID, avoiding position-based errors when the list has shifted. Place it before another rule or move it to the end.

Instructions

Reorder a firewall rule relative to another rule.

Both ends are given by id rather than position, so the move means the same thing even if the list shifted since you last read it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	Yes	The 'id' of the rule to move.
`before_rule_id`	No	The 'id' of the rule to place it in front of. Omit to move it to the end of the list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the move is specified by ids rather than positions, so it remains meaningful even if the rule list has changed since last read. This complements destructiveHint=true without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a meaningful clarification about id-based positioning. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the non-obvious id-relative behavior, leaving only an explicit usage guideline as a minor gap.

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%: both rule_id and before_rule_id are fully described with their meaning, including the omission behavior for before_rule_id. The description adds a useful semantic framing around id-based movement, but does not need to add parameter-level details.

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 identifies the action as 'Reorder a firewall rule relative to another rule.' The verb 'reorder' plus the resource 'firewall rule' distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_firewall_rule, set_firewall_rule_enabled, and remove_firewall_rule.

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?

Usage is implied by the action word 'reorder', but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_firewall_rule or add_firewall_rule. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but a competent agent can infer the intended use.

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