MikroTik MCP

get_filter_rule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information about a specific MikroTik firewall filter rule by its rule ID or positional number. Use it to audit or troubleshoot rule configuration.

Instructions

Gets detailed information about a specific firewall filter rule.

Notes: rule_id: positional number from list output (e.g. "12") or internal ID (e.g. "*1A")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device`	No
`rule_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.14.5Aug 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / device

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Device"
+}

First observedv0.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a useful nuance about accepted rule_id formats, but it does not add notable behavioral context beyond what the annotations already establish. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the Notes section adds only the essential parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, explains the required rule_id format, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The only notable gap is the undocumented device parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains rule_id with concrete examples ('12' or '*1A') and mentions that it comes from list output, which is valuable. However, the optional device parameter is not described at all, leaving its meaning and format to inference. Partial compensation for the critical parameter, but not full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Gets detailed information about a specific firewall filter rule.' The word 'specific' clearly separates it from list_filter_rules, and 'firewall filter rule' distinguishes it from get_ipv6_filter_rule and get_nat_rule. The purpose is immediately evident without needing to open the schema.

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 note that rule_id is a 'positional number from list output' implies that the agent should first call list_filter_rules to obtain the ID, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_ipv6_filter_rule. The guidance is implied rather than stated, so it earns a 3 rather than a 4.

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

Deploy Server