export_my_takemeup_dataWhere the user downloads a copy of all their TakeMeUp data (account, CVs, AI results, tracker, orders) as a JSON file (GDPR data export). The file opens in their browser while signed in — it isn't sent to the assistant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for results and links (en, de, fr, …). Defaults to the language of the user's TakeMeUp account. |
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 bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the file opens in the user's browser while signed in and is NOT returned to the assistant. That last point is exactly the kind of fact an agent would otherwise get wrong.
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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the delivery-channel caveat as a short follow-up. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 explains what the user gets (a JSON file in the browser) and why the agent sees no payload, plus the signed-in precondition. Adequate for a one-optional-parameter read tool; only minor detail like the export being complete/scoped-all-data is left implicit.
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 single optional 'locale' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-to-account-language behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (downloads) and resource (all TakeMeUp data) and enumerates the included data domains (account, CVs, AI results, tracker, orders), which separates it from single-artifact exports like export_takemeup_cv_yaml or export_takemeup_europass. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by scope rather than by routing.
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 phrasing 'Where the user downloads a copy of all their data' implies the triggering condition (a user-requested GDPR export), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for partial exports. The agent must infer that per-CV exports belong to different tools.
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.