Generate RSC, JSON, or XML export files on MikroTik devices to back up or transfer configuration settings.
Creates a configuration export file (rsc/json/xml) on the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| compact | No | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| export_type | No | full | |
| file_format | No | rsc | |
| hide_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.5Input schema / properties / deviceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Device"
+}v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; they do not declare read-only status or side effects. The description adds that the tool creates a file on the device, which is a useful side-effect signal, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, storage implications, or whether an existing export is replaced.
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 focused sentence that names the action, object, and formats without redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning every word it uses.
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?
Despite having an output schema and 8 optional parameters, the description leaves critical questions open: what 'name' and 'device' refer to, how compact/verbose interact with export_type, whether the file is stored on the device or returned, and when to use this instead of sibling export tools. Given the tool's complexity, the description is too sparse for safe autonomous invocation.
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 for 8 undocumented parameters. It only clarifies file_format via the listed formats; no explanation is given for name, device, comment, compact, verbose, export_type, or hide_sensitive, nor for the overlap between the compact/verbose booleans and export_type enum.
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 states a specific action ('Creates a configuration export file') and enumerates supported formats (rsc/json/xml), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not differentiate from related siblings like export_section, export_dns_config, or export_user_config, and omits that this appears to be a full-config export.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention export_section for partial exports, export_dns_config for DNS-only, or create_backup for binary backups, nor any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.