Export user configuration to a file for backup or transfer. Specify device and filename to save router user settings.
Exports user configuration to a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| filename | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate that. However, it doesn't add context about file location, naming conventions, overwrite behavior, or how the export is delivered (e.g., download). The description is neutral and does not contradict 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?
A single sentence that is short and directly states the action. However, it is slightly under-specified, which is a matter of completeness rather than conciseness; the phrasing is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
The tool has an output schema and safe annotations (readOnly, idempotent) which relieve some burden. But with 0% parameter coverage and no discussion of file export behavior (e.g., where the file goes, format), the description is adequate for a simple export but lacks operational detail for an agent to invoke it accurately.
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 adds no meaning for 'device' or 'filename' beyond their names. With zero required parameters and nullable defaults, the agent gets no hint about valid values, formats, or required fields for a valid export.
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 'Exports user configuration to a file' uses a specific verb ('exports') and resource ('user configuration'), and indicates the output is a file. It distinguishes from siblings like export_dns_config and export_section by focusing on user configuration, though it doesn't 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_export, export_section, or export_dns_config. No prerequisites, target file formats, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.