export_accountEverything the account holds, as one JSON document: branches, classes, fees, closed days, staff and the change history. Owner only.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "export_account"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value on top: the response is one consolidated JSON document with a stated contents list, and the operation requires owner role — a permission constraint annotations do not express.
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?
Two short fragments, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the contents and the access restriction. No filler, nothing repeated from 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 usefully enumerates what the returned document contains, which is the key missing piece. Minor gaps remain around delivery form and size/limit behavior for very large accounts, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or scoping options exist — the export is always account-wide.
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 concrete outcome: a single JSON document containing everything the account holds, and it enumerates the included entities (branches, classes, fees, closed days, staff, change history). This clearly distinguishes it from the granular list_* siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
"Owner only" gives an important access precondition, and the enumeration implies this is the bulk-dump option versus per-resource list tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative for narrower needs.
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.