Retrieve available MikroTik backup files, applying name filters or including exports to verify backup status.
Lists backup files on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| name_filter | No | ||
| include_exports | 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether exports are included by default or how filtering works, which is relevant given the include_exports parameter.
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 directly states the purpose, no fluff or unnecessary detail. The main verb is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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 description lacks essential details about parameter behavior and return values (though output schema may cover returns). It is too sparse for a tool with three optional parameters that affect what is listed, making it incomplete for confident usage.
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 provides no explanation for the three parameters (device, name_filter, include_exports). It does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving users to guess the meaning and usage of these parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and a clear resource 'backup files' with a scope 'on the MikroTik device'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_backup, restore_backup, and backup_info by indicating it enumerates existing backup files.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backup_info or list_files. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or that it is useful for verifying backups before restore.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.