mcp-mikrotik

set_identity

Change a MikroTik device's identity (hostname) with a preview before applying. Use confirm=False to preview changes, then confirm=True to apply.

Instructions

Set a device's RouterOS identity (hostname).

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.

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>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "set_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`new_name`	Yes
`device_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool is a WRITE operation, guarded by an environment variable, and offers a safe preview mode via confirm=False. This discloses the non-destructive default behavior and the guarded access, which is good for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, guard, workflow. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a write tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the guard and workflow. Output schema exists (assumed to document return values), so the description doesn't need to explain that. Missing detail on how to specify device_name, but overall sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains the 'confirm' parameter's role (preview vs apply), but 'device_name' and 'new_name' are only implied by the first sentence. 'new_name' is clearly the hostname, but 'device_name' lacks elaboration on how to specify it. Partial coverage.

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 'Set a device's RouterOS identity (hostname).' This provides a specific verb and resource, and the tool name 'set_identity' aligns perfectly. Siblings like 'interfaces', 'ip_addresses', etc., are distinct in purpose, so no confusion.

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?

The description explains the guarded nature (requires MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and the two-step preview-apply workflow with confirm parameter. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context signals and sibling tools imply this is the only write tool for identity. Clear context but no alternatives mentioned.

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

Deploy Server