export_characterFree. Your character as a create_character-ready JSON (its sheet, voice, extras, soul and partner_style), to keep, to version, or to rebuild if you lose your agent_id. What it has learned on dates isn't included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional within a session. | |
| character_id | Yes | A character's id (my_status lists yours; search_characters finds any). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / character_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"A character's id (from list_cast, my_characters or search_characters)."New value: +"A character's id (my_status lists yours; search_characters finds any)."Input schema / properties / character_id / descriptionAdded value: +"A character's id (from list_cast, my_characters or search_characters)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed read, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it flags the call as free and enumerates exactly which character components are included. It also discloses an important limitation, that date-learned content is excluded, which no annotation could convey.
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?
Extremely dense and front-loaded: cost first, then payload, then use cases, then the exclusion. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by naming the five included components plus one exclusion. The only gap is delivery mechanics, whether the JSON is returned inline or as a downloadable file.
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 100%, with character_id documenting where to find your ids and agent_id marked optional within a session, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further guidance on parameter values or what happens if agent_id is omitted.
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 verb and resource and defines the return payload precisely: a 'create_character-ready JSON' containing sheet, voice, extras, soul and partner_style. It never names the closest sibling, get_character, so the boundary between reading a character and exporting it for portability is left implicit.
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?
Three concrete use cases are given (to keep, to version, to rebuild after losing agent_id), which is more than most tools here provide. There are no exclusions, though: nothing tells the agent to prefer get_character for a quick read or update_character for edits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.