Skip to main content
Glama

cnvs.app

by app.cnvs

Export Tasks

export_tasks
Read-only

Export a 'todo' board's columns + tasks as a single text document. format is 'markdown' (a checklist grouped by column, the default) or 'csv' (one row per task with column/name/priority/assignee/due_date/done). Returns the rendered text. Same data as the GET /api/boards//tasks.md and tasks.csv REST endpoints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOutput format. Defaults to 'markdown'.
board_idYes
access_keyNo8-character lowercase alphanumeric board access key when the board is locked (legacy 6-character lowercase alphanumeric keys are also accepted). Equivalent to setting the `X-Board-Key` HTTP header on the JSON-RPC POST. Omit for unlocked boards. Obtain via POST /api/boards/<id>/lock.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true is supported by the description saying 'Returns the rendered text.' The description adds helpful context about the output format (markdown checklist vs CSV columns) and the REST equivalence, which goes beyond the simple annotation. It does not contradict any annotation and adds behavioral clarity around the output.

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?

The description is concise (about 70 words) and immediately states the purpose. It is structured with a clear progression: what it does, format options, return value, and API equivalence. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: functionality, parameter behavior, default values, and return type. It also references REST endpoints for additional context, making it complete for an agent to use appropriately.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'format' parameter's values and default, and clarifies the 'access_key' behavior (locking, legacy keys). Even though board_id has no explicit schema description, the tool description refers to 'a board' and the context of the tool implies its purpose. This compensates for the 67% schema coverage and provides clear parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool exports a board's columns and tasks as a single text document. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'single text document' and 'Returns the rendered text,' distinguishing it from structured data tools like list_tasks. The format details (markdown/CSV) further clarify its purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through the verb 'Export' and mentions the REST endpoints for additional context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' or comparison with alternatives beyond the REST reference.

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

All cnvs.app toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: canvas items (text, image, stroke, link), kanban elements (tasks, columns, lanes), and board-level operations (create, open, preview). Even the two move tools are clearly separated: move for board items and move_task for kanban cards. Descriptions explicitly disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., add_link vs add_text).

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_image, create_column, delete_task, update_task). Minor deviations: 'erase' and 'move' are single-word verbs lacking an explicit object, and 'move' could be confused with 'move_task' without descriptions. Overall the pattern is highly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is at the high end but justified by the dual-mode scope (freeform whiteboard and kanban board). Each cluster has a coherent set covering create, read, update, delete, and specialized operations (bulk creation, export, querying, waiting for updates). Slightly heavy but well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows for both whiteboard and kanban are covered: CRUD for text, images, tasks, columns, plus preview, export, bulk creation, and filtering. Minor gaps exist: no board rename/delete, no image resize after creation, and no bulk erase, but these can be worked around.

Resources