mcp-mikrotik

ip_routes

Retrieve the IPv4 routing table from a MikroTik RouterOS device, with an optional limit on the number of routes returned.

Instructions

List the IPv4 routing table of a device.

limit, if given, caps the number of rows returned (capped at 500); omit it to get the full table, mirroring logs' limit parameter.

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": "ip_routes"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Beyond the limit cap of 500 rows, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description does not compensate for missing annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words. The explanation of the limit parameter is efficient and clear.

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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the missing explanation for device_name and lack of behavioral context leave the description incomplete for an agent that must choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning to the limit parameter (caps rows, cap at 500, omit for full table) but does not explain the required device_name parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists the IPv4 routing table of a device, using specific verb and resource. This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like interfaces or neighbors.

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 explains the limit parameter's behavior but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites 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