Export verified knowledge graphs into interoperable formats (JSON, JSON-LD, CSV, GraphML) to enable sharing and reuse across external tools and workflows.
Export the verified knowledge graph to standard interoperable formats (JSON, JSON-LD, CSV, GraphML).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | Export format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose the return value or output type (e.g., whether it returns a file, string, or URL), nor any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that exports data.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the action and the relevant formats efficiently, with no wasted words.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent receives upon invocation. It does not mention the return type, file handling, or any constraints. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete for an agent to predict the outcome of the call.
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 schema already documents the single 'format' parameter with an enum and a description, so coverage is 100%. The description repeats the same format list and adds minimal context by calling them 'standard interoperable formats', but it does not explain nuances or selection criteria between formats, so it adds little beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action (export) and the resource (verified knowledge graph), and lists specific target formats (JSON, JSON-LD, CSV, GraphML). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on searching, verifying, and analyzing individual entities or claims, not on exporting the entire graph.
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 description implies the use case: when you need the graph in an interoperable format. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are all about entity-level operations, so the distinction is clear and the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.