Retrieve a MikroTik backup or export file as base64-encoded content by specifying the filename and type. Ideal for backing up or exporting router configurations.
Downloads a backup or export file from the MikroTik device as base64-encoded content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| file_type | No | backup |
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the file is returned as base64-encoded content and that it handles both backup and export files, which the annotations do not convey. No contradiction with annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. It omits unnecessary detail and is easy to parse.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the return format is presumably documented. However, the description does not cover parameter semantics or any edge cases (e.g., file not found, permission issues). For a simple download tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in parameter understanding.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'filename' or 'device' parameters. It only hints at 'backup or export' which maps to the 'file_type' enum, but does not explicitly describe how to use the parameters. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 action ('Downloads') and the resource ('backup or export file') from the MikroTik device, with an important output detail ('base64-encoded content'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_backup, upload_file, or list_backups.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is implied—download a file—but there is no guidance about when to prefer this over related operations like create_backup or list_backups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.