Skip to main content
Glama

add_to_address_list

Adds an IP address or subnet to a named MikroTik firewall address-list, enabling management of existing list entries without modifying firewall rules.

Instructions

Add address (an IP or subnet) to a named firewall address-list (/ip/firewall/address-list).

IMPORTANT: this only manages the list - it does NOT create or modify any firewall rule. Adding an address here only blocks or allows traffic if a /ip/firewall/filter (or NAT) rule on the device already references list_name (e.g. src-address-list=list_name, action=drop). See README's "Blocking/allowing a client via address lists" section.

WRITE tool, guarded: blocked entirely unless the server is running with MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true. Call with confirm=False (the default) to get a before/after preview without changing anything; call again with confirm=True to actually apply it. Errors clearly (without creating anything) if this exact list_name+address pair already exists on the device - it never creates a duplicate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
commentNo
confirmNo
timeoutNo
list_nameYes
device_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.11.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses the write guard, the two-phase preview/apply workflow, idempotency (refuses duplicate list_name+address pairs without creating anything), and error behavior. It goes well beyond what the schema conveys.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Content is front-loaded with the core action, then scoping, then the write guard. It is a bit long with uppercase IMPORTANT and a README pointer, but each block adds decision-relevant information rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a guarded mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, confirmation flow, no-op/duplicate behavior, and the crucial caveat that rules must already reference the list. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `address` as an IP or subnet and explains `confirm`'s default-false preview semantics and `list_name`'s role in rule matching, but leaves `comment`, `timeout`, and `device_name` entirely undocumented.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Add `address` ... to a named firewall address-list (/ip/firewall/address-list)') and explicitly scopes it away from related concepts, noting it does NOT create or modify firewall rules. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like remove_from_address_list, address_lists, and firewall_filter without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit preconditions (server must run with MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and a concrete call sequence: confirm=False for a preview, then confirm=True to apply. It also routes the agent to the README section for the rule-referencing scenario, covering when the effect actually materializes.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools