Create a system backup on a MikroTik device through n8n, with options to name the backup, encrypt it, and include or exclude passwords for secure configuration recovery.
Creates a system backup on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| dont_encrypt | No | ||
| include_password | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint=false, which indicates the operation is non-destructive, but readOnlyHint is absent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as potential storage impact, encryption defaults, or whether existing backups are overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it is minimalistic and omits useful context, though this is more a completeness issue than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks any usage context or parameter guidance. With 5 parameters and security-relevant options, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially without sibling differentiation or behavioral notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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, but it does not mention any parameters. Parameters like 'dont_encrypt' and 'include_password' could have important security implications, yet no explanation is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a system backup on the MikroTik device, which is a specific verb+resource. It is clear how 'create_backup' differs from sibling tools like 'create_export' or 'restore_backup', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_export or backup_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.