Keenetic NOC MCP

Download a configuration backup

backup_config

Read-only

Saves the router's startup configuration to a local file, creating a known-good restore point before changes. Reading the config changes nothing on the router.

Instructions

Saves the router startup configuration to a local file. Take one before any sequence of changes so there is a known-good state to return to. Reading the configuration changes nothing on the router.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "backup_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Absolute path of the local file to write.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-devSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description clearly states that reading the configuration changes nothing on the router, reinforcing the readOnlyHint annotation. It also adds the side effect of writing to a local file, clarifying the tool's non-destructive impact on the router. Goes beyond annotations by explaining the purpose of the backup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, usage timing, and behavioral assurance. Front-loaded with the core action, then usage guidance, then safety note. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to use, and behavioral side effects. Nothing critical missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (path parameter clearly described as 'Absolute path of the local file to write'). The description adds no extra parameter context, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents the single parameter. No ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states specific verb ('saves'), resource ('router startup configuration'), and destination ('local file'), clearing distinguishing it from all sibling getter/list tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance: 'Take one before any sequence of changes so there is a known-good state to return to.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling performs backup, this is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.