Export the full chat log as text or JSON (session summaries, recaps, archives). Text format: "[Speaker] Content" per line. JSON format: array of message objects with id, timestamp, author, speaker, content, flavor, isRoll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Export format. "text" (default) = readable log, "json" = structured data. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the exact serialization contract (line format for text, field list for JSON), which is real behavioral value an agent needs to consume 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and modes, then a compact per-format spec. Every clause carries information about either selection or output shape; nothing is padding.
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 correctly shoulders the burden of describing returned data for both formats. It is nearly complete; only minor details such as ordering, scope limits, or whether the export can be triggered for a subset of the log are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and the enum is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by spelling out what each format value actually produces — '[Speaker] Content' per line versus message objects with id, timestamp, author, speaker, content, flavor, isRoll.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Export the full chat log') plus the two output modes, so the agent can tell it apart from chat-list or chat-send. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the 'full export' framing is distinct from the incremental chat tools.
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 parenthetical 'session summaries, recaps, archives' implies when this is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of chat-list as the alternative for paginated browsing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.