mikrotik_rebootReboot a MikroTik router only after user confirmation; expect a brief connection drop while it restarts.
Reboot the router. The connection will drop for about a minute. Always confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | Name of the configured device. Defaults to the first device (see mikrotik_list_devices). | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm the reboot |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real information the agent cannot get elsewhere: the connection drops for roughly a minute, and user confirmation is mandatory. It stops short of saying whether the device comes back automatically or whether in-flight config is lost.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its impact front-loaded and the safety instruction last. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
For a two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the action, its observable effect, the downtime window, and the human-in-the-loop requirement. Only a note on post-reboot state or failure behavior is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so both the 'device' default behavior and the const-true 'confirm' guard are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is acceptable at full coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Reboot the router') in the first sentence. No sibling tool performs reboots, so the action is unambiguous against the long list of mikrotik_* diagnostic and config tools.
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?
Gives an explicit precondition ('Always confirm with the user first') that governs whether the agent may invoke at all. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling offers a comparable action, so there is little to disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.