Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Export Config

export_config
DestructiveIdempotent

Export a MikroTik RouterOS configuration as a RouterOS script, returning it inline or saving it as an .rsc file on the router; use compact mode for non-default values.

Instructions

Export the router configuration as a RouterOS script. When no file is specified, returns the script text inline. When a file is specified, saves it as .rsc on the router's filesystem. Supports compact mode to show only non-default values.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoSave the export to a file on the router (without extension); omit to return inline
compactNoExport only non-default settings (compact format)
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
confirmationTokenNoToken from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / routerId / description
      Previous value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "routerId"
-]
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the file is written as <file>.rsc on the router filesystem, and the no-file path returns inline text, which tells the agent what side effect to expect. It does not mention the approval/confirmation flow, though the schema parameter covers that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the two conditional behaviors; no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return format (inline script text vs file on disk), which is what an agent most needs here. It omits any mention of the destructive-action confirmation requirement, but that is documented on the confirmationToken parameter, so the gap is minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the exact artifact created (<file>.rsc) and restating that compact mode filters to non-default values, resolving ambiguity about what 'compact' produces.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (export) and resource (router configuration) plus the output format (RouterOS script), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools like create_backup or get_file_content, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains the two operating modes (no file = inline text, file = saved to disk), which implies when each is appropriate, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus create_backup or how to read the saved file afterward.

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