Add a default route to MikroTik RouterOS by specifying a gateway, with optional distance and ping-based gateway checking.
Adds a default route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| gateway | Yes | ||
| distance | No | ||
| check_gateway | No | ping |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.5Input schema / properties / deviceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Device"
+}v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds no behavioral details such as whether the route replaces an existing default, requires safe mode, or checks gateway reachability. It simply restates the action with no side-effect disclosure.
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 one-sentence description is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified: for a tool with five parameters and no structural breakdown, this brevity does not count as effective conciseness.
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 tool has five parameters, sibling route tools, and no parameter coverage in the description, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral context, even though an output schema exists.
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 mentions none of the five parameters (gateway, distance, check_gateway, device, comment). The agent receives no semantic explanation beyond parameter names, with no help for required gateway or check_gateway behavior.
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 action ('Adds') and the target resource ('default route'), which distinguishes it from generic route tools like add_route. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a default route or explicitly mention alternative tools.
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?
No guidance about when to use add_default_route versus add_route or add_blackhole_route, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description only states the action, providing zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.