datalens-dev-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

dl_backup_export

Idempotent

Export exact DataLens object snapshots and a completeness manifest to local files for backup verification; it does not provide full restore.

Instructions

Export exact object snapshots and a completeness manifest to local files; this is not a full-restore claim.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "targets": "<targets>",
      "output_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "dl_backup_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`targets`	Yes
`output_dir`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context beyond that: it writes to local files and produces a completeness manifest, plus the caveat that this is not a restore guarantee. It still omits failure behavior and how partial exports are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and appends the scope caveat. No filler, but it is terse enough that no further elaboration is offered where it would help.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more of the load than one sentence. It omits how targets/revisions are resolved, what the manifest contains, and how export outcomes or failures surface.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the two required parameters (targets, output_dir) nor the nested target fields (branch, revision_id, expected_saved_revision). With the schema bearing no descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (export) with clear resources (exact object snapshots plus a completeness manifest) and destination (local files). The scope caveat ('not a full-restore claim') sharpens the purpose, though no sibling is named for differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling (e.g. dl_dashboard_snapshot, dl_object_get) is referenced. The 'not a full-restore claim' caveat implies a boundary but does not route the agent or state preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.