Export user configuration to a file for backup or migration. Specify device and filename to save RouterOS user settings.
Exports user configuration to a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| filename | 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 only include openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, neither of which discloses side effects. The description mentions exporting to a file but does not clarify file format, overwrite behavior, destination path, or what the output schema contains. With sparse annotations, the description carries the burden and fails to provide meaningful behavioral details.
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 concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the primary action. It earns points for brevity, though it could add more detail without becoming verbose.
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's simplicity, the description is still inadequate because it fails to define the scope of 'user configuration', explain the device parameter's necessity, or differentiate from other export tools. The output schema exists but is not described, and the overall context is too thin for reliable 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% and the description does not mention either parameter (device, filename). An agent has no explanation of what these parameters mean, their default behavior, or how they affect the export, making parameter usage completely opaque.
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 action (exports), the resource (user configuration), and the destination (to a file). It is specific enough to convey the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like export_section or export_logs.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess among the many export-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.