Search MikroTik router logs for specific terms to identify events or errors. Filter by device, time, and case sensitivity with optional result limits.
Searches log messages for a specific term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| search_term | Yes | ||
| time_filter | No | ||
| case_sensitive | 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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention case sensitivity, time filtering, device filtering, result limits, or return format. Given the parameters available, this is a notable gap.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool, and the structure is clean 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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and there are many sibling log-related tools (get_logs, get_logs_by_severity, get_logs_by_topic, etc.), the description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on how it differs from these alternatives and does not explain the optional filtering parameters. The output schema and annotations provide some context, but the description itself is incomplete for confident tool selection.
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 adds minimal meaning by clarifying that 'search_term' is the term to search for, but it says nothing about 'limit', 'device', 'time_filter', or 'case_sensitive'. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no parameter documentation.
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's function: 'Searches log messages for a specific term.' This uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('log messages'), and the phrase 'for a specific term' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_logs that likely return entire logs. It is direct and unambiguous.
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 usage: when you need to find log messages containing a specific term, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools like get_logs_by_severity or get_logs_by_topic, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative scenarios. The guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.