export_app_dataEmails the owner a one-use link to a zip (CSV and files) of one list or all, valid 24 hours, signed in only; the link never comes back here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | ||
| site | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| export_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "export_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, and destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the result is emailed to the owner, the link is one-use and valid for 24 hours, the archive contains CSV and files, and the link is not returned through this tool.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every clause adds useful information: delivery method, link lifetime, archive contents, scope, authentication, and the fact that the link is not returned here.
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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers delivery, link validity, contents, and scope. The main gap is the unexplained required 'site' parameter, but otherwise the definition is rich enough to call the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the optional 'list' scope ('one list or all') but does not explain the required 'site' parameter at all. With only half of the small parameter set clarified, the description leaves a meaningful gap.
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 outcome: emails the owner a one-use link to a zip export of one list or all. It clearly distinguishes this tool from direct data retrieval siblings like get_app_data by emphasizing the emailed link and the fact that the link never comes back through this tool.
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?
It gives an implicit use case (requesting an emailed export link) and a prerequisite ('signed in only'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_app_data, create_upload_link, or other export-related siblings. The agent can infer the intended use, but alternatives are not addressed.
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.