Filter MikroTik router logs by severity level to isolate critical events, warnings, or errors. Specify severity and optional limit or time filter for targeted troubleshooting.
Gets logs filtered by severity level (debug/info/warning/error/critical).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| severity | Yes | ||
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that the tool filters by severity, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose additional traits such as pagination behavior, filtering logic, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function without redundant words or front-loaded delay.
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 the tool has four parameters and no schema property descriptions, the description is insufficient to fully understand usage. It fails to explain time_filter or device semantics, and doesn't address limitations or return behavior beyond the severity filter. The output schema helps with return values, but the input parameter semantics are incomplete.
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?
The description explains only the severity parameter by listing its valid values, which compensates slightly for the 0% schema description coverage. However, limit, device, and time_filter remain completely unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving logs filtered by severity, with an explicit list of severity levels. This distinguishes it from generic log tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling filters like get_logs_by_topic.
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 get_logs, search_logs, or get_logs_by_topic. The description states the action but gives no contextual recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.