MikroTik MCP

list_routes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve MikroTik routing table entries with filters for destination, gateway, distance, routing table, and route type to inspect or troubleshoot network paths.

Instructions

Lists routes in MikroTik routing table.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device`	No
`dst_filter`	No
`active_only`	No
`static_only`	No
`dynamic_only`	No
`disabled_only`	No
`gateway_filter`	No
`distance_filter`	No
`routing_table_filter`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.4Sep 20, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / routing_mark_filter

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Routing Mark Filter"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / routing_table_filter

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

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return format or pagination, but does not contradict annotations. A 3 is appropriate given the annotations cover the core safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It is not front-loaded with important details like filtering options or sibling differentiation. It is adequate in length but lacks substance, so a 3 is fair.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 9 optional filter parameters and an output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not mention that filtering is possible, nor does it explain any parameter semantics. The agent would need to infer behavior from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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 any of the 9 parameters (e.g., dst_filter, active_only, static_only). The description offers no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess how to use filters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (routes in MikroTik routing table). It is specific but does not differentiate from siblings like get_route or get_routing_table, which could be ambiguous. A 4 is appropriate because it is clear but lacks explicit distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_route for a single route or get_routing_table for the full table. No context about filtering or selection criteria is given, leaving the agent without direction.

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

Deploy Server