Execute read-only RouterOS commands like print, export, monitor, or ping to inspect MikroTik router state without making changes.
Run a READ-ONLY RouterOS command (print, export, monitor, ping count=4...). For changes use the dedicated tools or apply_changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | router | |
| command | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the READ-ONLY boundary and warns that changes belong elsewhere, but it omits prerequisites such as an active session/connection and does not explain what makes a command read-only or how errors are surfaced.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste. The critical READ-ONLY constraint is front-loaded, and the alternative routing sentence earns 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should still cover session/connection prerequisites and clarify the command parameter; those gaps leave it only adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the command or name parameters. The command examples hint at valid values, but the description does not explain that command is the RouterOS command string to execute or what the name parameter selects.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: run a READ-ONLY RouterOS command, with examples like print, export, monitor, and ping count=4. It also distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings by directing changes to dedicated tools or apply_changes.
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?
Explicitly says when to use it, for read-only commands, and when not to, for changes. It names the alternative apply_changes and other dedicated tools, so an agent can route correctly without inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.