mcp-mikrotik

remove_ipv6_route

Remove a static IPv6 route from a MikroTik device by destination address, optionally narrowed by gateway, with safety checks for dynamic routes.

Instructions

Remove a static IPv6 route (/ipv6/route remove), resolved by dst_address - narrowed by gateway when more than one route shares that dst_address. Mirrors remove_route on the IPv6 menu, INCLUDING its most important safety property. Errors clearly if nothing matches, or if the match is still ambiguous after narrowing.

dst_address/gateway must be IPv6 (an IPv4 address/subnet in either is rejected before the device is ever touched).

SAFETY: refuses outright (raises an error, does not remove anything) if the resolved route is dynamic (dynamic=true - a connected/DHCP/router-advertisement-installed route). Only static, admin-created IPv6 routes can be removed by this tool.

RISK: removing the default route (dst_address="::/0") cuts all outbound IPv6 traffic that relies on this gateway. The returned preview's warning field is non-null whenever this is the case (not blocking - removing a static default route is legitimate).

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 (including the warning field) without changing anything; call again with confirm=True to actually apply it. Also errors clearly if the ipv6 package is disabled on the device.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`gateway`	No
`device_name`	Yes
`dst_address`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.11.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire burden and does so richly: it discloses the dynamic-route refusal, the write-guard (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true), the confirm preview semantics, the disabled-ipv6-package error, and the default-route risk with its non-blocking `warning` field. This is far beyond what the empty annotation set provides.

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?

Well-structured with SAFETY, RISK, and WRITE sections and the core purpose front-loaded. It is somewhat long with a little repetition around the preview/warning behavior, but nearly every sentence adds operational value.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still references the returned preview's `warning` field, tying behavior to the return value. With safety, guard, error, and format behaviors all covered, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 must compensate, and it covers the meaningful parameters: dst_address and gateway (with narrowing behavior) and confirm (preview vs apply). It also states the IPv6-only format constraint for dst_address/gateway. Only device_name is left unexplained, which is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a static IPv6 route) and ties it to the exact CLI equivalent `/ipv6/route remove`. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its IPv4 counterpart with 'Mirrors `remove_route` on the IPv6 menu', so an agent can place it among siblings 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the resolution logic (resolved by `dst_address`, narrowed by `gateway` when ambiguous) and the confirm=False/confirm=True two-step workflow. It implies rather than states the IPv4-vs-IPv6 routing split against `remove_route`, so it stops just short of explicit when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server