What did Hlido score MikroMCP?

MikroMCP scored 79/100 (STEADY) in Hlido's independent, hands-on review.

How much does MikroMCP cost?

Hlido recorded the pricing model as: Open source. Derived from evidence Hlido holds, not vendor-supplied; verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page.

Does any vendor pay Hlido for placement?

No. Hlido takes no money from the agents it rates — scoring weights stay private and the evidence behind every verdict is public.

MikroMCP

Name: MikroMCP review
Item: MikroMCP
Rating: 79
Author: Hlido Editor

Infrastructure · tested 2026-08-14 · by the Hlido desk, not the vendor

In short: An MCP server for MikroTik RouterOS that leads with the danger rather than the demo — dry-run, rollback, RBAC, audit logs and per-router circuit breakers, in a category where most tools ship raw command execution and hope.

Visit MikroMCP → scorecard.json

Quick answer

MikroMCP scores 79/100 (STEADY) on Hlido’s independent, hands-on test (reviewed 2026-08-14). STEADY because the public surface is specific and well-organised — enumerated tool count, named capability areas, both transports documented, MIT licence, docs and FAQ present — and because the safety-first framing is ge Pricing: Open source (free entry point documented).

Hlido Editor · 2026-08-14

MikroMCP exposes 117 typed tools over RouterOS 7.x and frames the entire product around a single argument: raw CLI is the wrong abstraction for an LLM operating production network gear. Rather than treating that as a disclaimer, it is the product. Strict schemas, idempotent writes, dry-run previews, snapshots, a write journal, plan_changes/apply_plan/rollback_change, per-router circuit breakers, retry policies, RBAC with bcrypt token hashes, correlation IDs and audit logs are all named on the landing page. For anyone who has watched an LLM improvise a firewall rule, that ordering of priorities is the correct one, and it is rare. Coverage is enumerated concretely across router management, network operations, firewall and policy, routing visibility, secure access, diagnostics and change safety, with both stdio and HTTP transports and named clients (Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Codex). MIT licensed with a docs link and a FAQ. What is missing is corroboration: the safety machinery is listed but not demonstrated — no sample dry-run output, no audit-log excerpt, no worked rollback. There is also no statement about how router credentials are stored, which is the sharpest question for a tool holding privileged access to network infrastructure. The design intent is clearly right; the evidence for it is currently assertion.

Why STEADY

STEADY because the public surface is specific and well-organised — enumerated tool count, named capability areas, both transports documented, MIT licence, docs and FAQ present — and because the safety-first framing is genuinely differentiated for this category. Held out of the top band because every safety feature is asserted rather than demonstrated (no sample dry-run, audit entry or rollback), and because credential handling for privileged router access is not addressed on the public surface.

What we saw

4 screenshots captured by the Hlido engine during the reviewed run (run-c3821cc654d33602-mikromcp-com). Our own captures — not vendor marketing material.

MikroMCP — run screenshot 1 (home.png) — home.png

MikroMCP — run screenshot 2 (page_top.png) — page_top.png

MikroMCP — run screenshot 3 (page_features.png) — page_features.png

MikroMCP — run screenshot 4 (page_how.png) — page_how.png

What it does well

Leads with change-safety rather than capability — dry-run, snapshots, rollback and a write journal are the headline, not a footnote
117 typed tools with strict schemas, enumerated across seven named capability areas
RBAC, bcrypt token hashes, audit logs and correlation IDs published as first-class features
Per-router circuit breakers and retry policies — genuine operational maturity for an OSS project
Both stdio and HTTP transports, with named clients (Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Codex)
MIT licensed, with docs and FAQ linked from the landing page

What it fails at

Every safety feature is asserted; none is demonstrated with sample output, an audit excerpt or a worked rollback
No statement on how router credentials are stored, scoped or rotated — the key question for privileged infrastructure access
No version or changelog signal on the landing surface
Scope is RouterOS 7.x only, with no statement on older-release behaviour
The confirmation-token and RBAC model is named but its actual semantics are not described

Red flags

The safety features that justify this tool's existence — dry-run, rollback, audit, RBAC — are listed but never shown. For a tool holding write access to production network gear, that gap between claim and evidence is the one worth closing first.
Credential storage and rotation for privileged router access is not addressed anywhere on the public surface.

Best for

Network teams running MikroTik fleets who want LLM assistance with real guardrails
Operators who need read-heavy diagnostics (status, interfaces, logs, BGP/OSPF visibility) more than writes
Anyone who has rejected AI network tooling on safety grounds and wants to reconsider with dry-run and rollback in place

Not recommended for

Non-MikroTik environments — this is RouterOS-specific by design
Teams needing evidence of the safety machinery before granting production access; it is currently unevidenced
Organisations requiring a documented credential-handling posture before deployment

Pricing & access

ModelOpen source
Free entry pointYes — a free tier or open-source edition is documented

Derived from Hlido-held evidence only (engine checklist + editorial text); quotes are verbatim from the scorecard; not vendor-supplied; re-derived daily. Verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page. Last verified 2026-08-13.

Compared to

Open Source MCP Servers for AWS physical-network-vs-cloud
AWS's suite is broader and vendor-backed but targets cloud infrastructure; MikroMCP is narrow, community-built and targets physical network gear. Not substitutes — different infrastructure entirely.
nable read-only-vs-guarded-write
Both adopt a safety-first posture for infrastructure agents (nable via read-only plus PR review, MikroMCP via dry-run plus rollback). nable is cost-focused and read-only; MikroMCP performs guarded writes.

Agent relevance

API MCP Behavioral-testable

Agentic-Commerce Readiness 56/100 · INTEGRABLE

Independent readiness for agent delegation & transaction. How it’s scored · check live

MCP server with 117 typed tools over stdio and HTTP, HTTP bearer auth, RBAC and per-tool restrictions. Strict schemas and idempotent writes make it unusually well-suited to autonomous operation, and the dry-run/plan/apply pattern gives an agent a safe way to propose before committing.

Agent-friendly score: 8/10

Evidence

Homepage publicly accessible and value proposition clearly stated — source (2026-08-14) verified
Pricing page discoverable in 2 clicks from homepage — source (2026-08-14)
Documentation or live demo accessible without login — source (2026-08-14)
Integration list or supported frameworks documented — source (2026-08-14) verified
Authentication / data handling claims publicly stated — source (2026-08-14)

scorecard.json · transparency passport · registry · methodology

More: compare agents · best of · developer tools · incident registry

Verdict by Hlido Editor, our automated editorial system · Method: public-surface-tier-2+editorial-narrative-v2 · Methodology version 2026.08 ·

How this page was produced. The scores, claim verdicts and evidence come from automated hands-on testing of the product’s public surface. The written analysis is drafted by an AI system, and pages publish without a person reviewing each one. Hlido publishes this record and answers for it — tell us if anything here is wrong and we will correct it.

Embed this trust badge

Live, always-current independent score — free to embed on your site or README. No vendor pays for placement.

Markdown

[![Hlido trust score](https://hlido.eu/badge/alikarami-mikromcp.svg)](https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=alikarami-mikromcp)

HTML

<a href="https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=alikarami-mikromcp"><img src="https://hlido.eu/badge/alikarami-mikromcp.svg" alt="Hlido trust score"></a>