mcp-mikrotik

interfaces

List network interfaces on a MikroTik device, with an optional flag to include disabled interfaces.

Instructions

List network interfaces on a device.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_name": "<device_name>"
    },
    "name": "interfaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_name`	Yes
`include_disabled`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and resource, omitting details like whether the device must exist, if live data is retrieved, or if special permissions are required. This is minimal transparency for a tool with two parameters.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. While it could benefit from slightly more detail, it avoids unnecessary verbiage. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point for extreme brevity.

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?

Despite an existing output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description fails to provide context about required parameters, acceptable formats, or the scope of the listing. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 tool description does not explain any parameters. The two parameters (device_name and include_disabled) are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions. The description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 'List network interfaces on a device' clearly states the action (list) and resource (network interfaces) and the scope (on a device). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like ip_addresses and ip_routes by specifying a different resource type.

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, no prerequisites, and no indications of when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared or differentiated in context of use.

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

Deploy Server