mikrotik_system_overviewRetrieve a MikroTik device’s identity, RouterOS version, board details, CPU, memory, disk usage, uptime, clock, and health sensors in one call to quickly assess system status.
Identity, RouterOS version, board, CPU/memory/disk usage, uptime, clock and health sensors in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | Name of the configured device. Defaults to the first device (see mikrotik_list_devices). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait — that all these data points are fetched in a single round trip — but says nothing about what happens on unreachable devices or how absent health sensors are handled.
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, front-loaded with the returned data categories, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
Although there is no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the return contents, and the read-only annotations make the risk profile clear. The only gap is that it does not note platform-dependent variability in the returned set (e.g. health sensors on boards that lack them or fields unsupported by older RouterOS).
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% and the single 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default and a pointer to mikrotik_list_devices. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (identity, RouterOS version, board, CPU/memory/disk usage, uptime, clock, health sensors), which makes the resource unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling list-style tools (interfaces, routes, logs). The verb is only implied by 'in one call' rather than stated, so it falls just short of a perfect verb+resource statement.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as mikrotik_print, mikrotik_list_devices, or the per-resource tools. The phrase 'in one call' hints that it is an aggregate convenience read, but no exclusions or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.