Export MikroTik logs to a file on the device, applying optional topic and time filters for targeted troubleshooting and record-keeping.
Exports logs to a file on the MikroTik device with optional topic and time filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| format | No | plain | |
| topics | No | ||
| filename | No | ||
| time_filter | 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 already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is known to be non-destructive and repeatable. The description adds that logs are written to a file on the device, which is a side effect. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, filename defaults, or what happens if the file exists, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.
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 sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the primary action and destination. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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 is minimal and does not explain return values, filename behavior, or provide usage context. With 5 parameters, none described in the schema, and no usage guidelines, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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. It only explains 'topics' and 'time_filter' as optional filters, but leaves device, format, and filename unexplained. Even the filter parameters lack syntax or format details. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 exports logs to a file on the device, with a specific verb (exports), resource (logs), and destination (file on device). It also mentions optional filters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_logs or export_section, though the 'to a file' aspect provides some differentiation.
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. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with other log-related tools such as get_logs or export_dns_config. The reader must infer usage solely from the function name and brief action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.