MikroTik MCP

remove_filter_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a firewall filter rule from a MikroTik device by specifying its ID (e.g., '12' or '*1A'). Simplifies rule management by removing unwanted entries directly via AI-assisted commands.

Instructions

Removes a firewall filter rule from the MikroTik device.

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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful context about valid rule_id formats (positional or internal ID), but it does not disclose side effects, permanence, or behavior when the rule does not exist. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 brief, front-loaded with the action, and includes only a focused note on the key parameter. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

Given the annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete: it states the action, target, and the crucial rule_id formats. It lacks explicit mention of how to obtain the list or what happens after removal, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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 does so for the required rule_id parameter by explaining it can be a positional number from list output or an internal MikroTik ID, which is operationally important. The optional device parameter is not explained, but it has a default and is less critical.

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 ('Removes') and clearly names the resource ('firewall filter rule') and target ('MikroTik device'). This distinguishes it from sibling removal tools such as remove_nat_rule and remove_ipv6_filter_rule without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_nat_rule or disable_filter_rule. It implies that a rule should be selected from list output, but it gives no explicit guidance on prerequisites or when removal is preferred over disabling.

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

Deploy Server