mcp-mikrotik

ping

Ping an IP address or hostname from a MikroTik device to test network connectivity.

Instructions

Ping an address from a device. address must be a valid IPv4/IPv6 address or hostname.

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>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`address`	Yes
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as timeout, result format, permission requirements, or whether the ping is ICMP-based. Minimal transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete—lacks detail on the 'count' parameter and output expectations, and no usage guidance.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description only adds meaning for 'address' (validity requirement). The other parameters ('count', 'device_name') are not explained, leaving gaps in 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 clearly states the action ('Ping') and the resource ('an address from a device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'interfaces' or 'logs'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a prerequisite ('address must be valid IPv4/IPv6 or hostname') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for connectivity checks vs. routing diagnostics).

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

Deploy Server