Disable a specific IP address entry in a MikroTik address list to stop its use in firewall rules. Provide address, list name, and IP family (IPv4 or IPv6) to deactivate the entry.
Disables an address list entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| family | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| list_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that the operation is idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, but it does not contradict the annotations. For a simple state-toggle operation, this is minimally adequate.
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 sentence with no filler or redundant explanation, making it easy to parse. It is concise rather than complete, but structurally it is appropriately front-loaded and economical.
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 output schema, clear required parameters, and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is nearly sufficient for a tool with this complexity. What is missing is explicit routing guidance among the address-list sibling tools and any note about what 'disable' implies relative to other state operations.
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 does not explain how the parameters (family, list_name, address, device) identify the target entry. The schema's self-descriptive parameter names and the family enum mitigate this, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Disables') and a clear resource ('address list entry'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like enable_address_list_entry, remove_address_list_entry, and update_address_list_entry. It does not explicitly articulate scope, but the action and object are unambiguous.
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 about when to disable versus remove or re-enable an address list entry. No context is given about desired state management, temporary deactivation, or prerequisites, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling relationships.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.