Skip to main content
Glama

users

List RouterOS login accounts with group, allowed source, last login, disabled state, and comment. Read-only; returns an empty list if the endpoint is unavailable.

Instructions

List RouterOS login accounts (/user): name, group, address (an allowed-source restriction, if the account has one), last-logged-in (if RouterOS exposes it), disabled, comment.

/user's own API reply never carries a password at all - RouterOS doesn't expose it over the API, so there is nothing to strip here (unlike ppp_secrets/radius, whose underlying menus DO carry a secret). This is a READ only: creating/editing a /user login stays deliberately out of scope for this package (see ROADMAP.md's "Explicitly NOT on the roadmap" - a router login is a device/API credential, a different risk class from a service credential like a PPP secret or hotspot user).

Returns an empty list (never an error) if /user is unavailable for some reason - /user always exists on RouterOS in practice, but this keeps the same "empty, not an error" convention every other optional read in this package uses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.11.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no password is ever returned, that the underlying menu holds no secret, that writes are out of scope, and that an unavailable `/user` yields an empty list rather than an error. It omits auth/permission requirements, which would be useful given the account-listing subject matter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is well front-loaded with the returned fields, but the ROADMAP.md aside and the risk-class rationale run long for a single-parameter read tool. The core facts are present; the editorial justification could be trimmed without losing agent-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description compensates with the empty-list-not-error convention and the password disclosure. The main gap is the undocumented `device_name` parameter and unstated access requirements.

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?

There is one parameter (`device_name`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. With low coverage the description should compensate for the schema gap, and it does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List RouterOS login accounts (`/user`)') and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `user_active`, `ppp_secrets`, and `radius`, which it explicitly contrasts itself against.

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?

It clearly scopes when this tool applies (read-only listing of `/user` accounts) and states that creating/editing logins is deliberately excluded, routing an agent away from expecting a write path here. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over `user_active` or `security_audit`, leaving some sibling routing to inference.

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