MikroTik MCP

update_route

Idempotent

Modify existing router routes by changing gateway, distance, or routing table to control traffic flow and failover in MikroTik RouterOS.

Instructions

Updates a route.

Notes: route_id: "*N" or "N" from list output e.g. "*3" dst_address: CIDR e.g. "192.168.1.0/24" check_gateway: "ping" or "arp" distance: 1-255 routing_table: name of a table from /routing table; "" moves the route back to "main", since every RouterOS 7 route belongs to a table. Pass "" to vrf_interface or pref_src to clear them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No
`device`	No
`comment`	No
`gateway`	No
`disabled`	No
`distance`	No
`pref_src`	No
`route_id`	Yes
`dst_address`	No
`target_scope`	No
`check_gateway`	No
`routing_table`	No
`vrf_interface`	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

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

addedInput schema / properties / routing_table

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

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: passing "" to vrf_interface or pref_src clears them, and routing_table "" moves the route back to 'main'. This is non-obvious behavior not visible in the schema or annotations. Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructiveness, so the bar is appropriately lower.

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 compact: a one-line summary followed by a focused bullet list of parameter notes. Every sentence adds value, and the most important parameter (route_id) is front-loaded. No unnecessary prose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 13 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no high-level usage context, the description is only partially complete. It documents key parameters but omits several (scope, device, comment, gateway, disabled, target_scope), and does not explain the general workflow (e.g., that route_id must reference an existing route). The presence of an output schema and annotations helps, but gaps remain.

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 carries the burden. It documents 7 of 13 parameters with concrete formats (e.g., route_id format with example, CIDR for dst_address, ping/arp for check_gateway, 1-255 range for distance) and special semantics (routing_table main behavior, clearing via empty string). Some parameters like scope, device, and target_scope remain undocumented, but the provided notes add substantial value.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Updates a route.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_route, remove_route, enable_route, and disable_route. However, it does not explicitly say that it modifies fields of an existing route, leaving that slightly implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for existing routes only, nor does it contrast with add_route/remove_route. The notes focus entirely on parameter formats, not usage context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server