Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-mikrotik

mcp-mikrotik

by thalisantunes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

system_info

Retrieve RouterOS identity and resource information including board model, version, uptime, CPU and memory usage from a device.

Instructions

Get RouterOS identity + resource info (board, version, uptime, CPU/memory).

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": "system_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any prerequisites, side effects, or return format details. It is minimal.

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?

Single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the key action ('Get RouterOS identity + resource info'). No wasted words, though could be slightly more complete.

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?

Description lists specific fields to be retrieved (board, version, uptime, CPU/memory), providing good context. However, it fails to document the single parameter, and with an existing output schema, return values are partially covered.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the required 'device_name' parameter at all, leaving the agent guessing about what values are valid.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets RouterOS identity and resource info (board, version, uptime, CPU/memory). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_devices' (which only lists names) and 'set_identity' (which modifies identity).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tools are sufficiently different, so usage is implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools