Retrieve system log events such as logins, reboots, and config changes from MikroTik routers. Filter by event type, device, or time to diagnose issues.
Gets system-related log events (login, reboot, config-change, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| event_type | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about event categories (login, reboot, config-change) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or access requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently delivers the core purpose, though it could expand slightly without becoming verbose.
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 only 4 optional parameters and an output schema, and annotations cover read-only behavior. However, the description fails to differentiate from many sibling log tools and does not explain parameter semantics, leaving some context gaps for the agent.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at event_type values through examples, but does not explain limit, device, time_filter, or format constraints. Parameter names are self-explanatory but semantics are left undefined.
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 retrieves system-related log events with concrete examples (login, reboot, config-change). It distinguishes from generic log tools like get_logs by focusing on system events, 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 implies use for system-related log events but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like get_logs_by_topic or get_security_logs. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned; usage must be inferred from the examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.