mcp-mikrotik

set_wireless_channel

Adjust a MikroTik wireless interface's frequency and channel width, with optional deadman restore to prevent losing management access.

Instructions

Set a /interface/wireless interface's frequency (MHz) and optionally channel_width.

LOCKOUT-RISK on a PtP link that is itself the management path to the far end: a bad frequency (or a DFS Channel Availability Check stall) can cut the only route back to the device. By default (arm_deadman=True), a confirm=True apply FIRST arms a dead-man (arm_dead_man) that restores the interface's prior frequency/ channel-width after deadman_minutes (1-60, default 3) unless cancelled - call cancel_dead_man(device_name, dead_man["name"]) once the new channel is confirmed good. Set arm_deadman=False only for an interface known NOT to be a management path.

The returned preview's warning ALWAYS reports whether frequency needs a DFS Channel Availability Check under this interface's CURRENT frequency-mode (superchannel: none, instant; otherwise ~60s in the general DFS range 5250-5725MHz, ~600s in the 5600-5650MHz weather-radar sub-band - verified against real hardware). See docs/api-notes-wireless-rf.md.

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 DFS warning, without arming anything) without changing anything; call again with confirm=True to actually apply it. Errors if interface_name doesn't exist on /interface/wireless - never creates one. This targets /interface/wireless only - see guard.py's module note for why ROS7's newer /interface/wifi package is out of scope this round.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`frequency`	Yes
`arm_deadman`	No
`device_name`	Yes
`channel_width`	No
`interface_name`	Yes
`deadman_minutes`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.11.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the write-guard (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true), the lockout risk on PtP management paths, the dead-man arming behavior and its default, the DFS CAC delay ranges verified against hardware, and that the tool errors rather than creates a missing interface.

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 long but front-loaded with the core action, then organized into risk/behavioral/tool-scope sections. It is dense and every paragraph earns its place, though the density is high enough that it borders on overwhelming for a single tool.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description supplies everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: write guard, confirm flow, dead-man behavior and cleanup, DFS timing, and the interface-not-found failure mode. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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

Parameters5/5

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 does: it explains frequency units (MHz), channel_width is optional, arm_deadman defaults to True, deadman_minutes range (1-60, default 3), and confirm's preview-then-apply semantics. This meaningfully exceeds the bare 0% schema 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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (a /interface/wireless interface's frequency and optional channel_width), naming the exact config path. It explicitly scopes the tool to /interface/wireless and notes that ROS7's /interface/wifi is out of scope, distinguishing it from the many siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when/when-not guidance: call with confirm=False for a preview, confirm=True to apply; set arm_deadman=False only for interfaces known NOT to be a management path; the description also routes the agent to cancel_dead_man after a confirmed apply and references the related sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server