ImmunoGraph MCP

export_candidates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Serialize reviewed candidate records into JSON or CSV, keeping raw and normalized scores separate for table export and returning file bytes with checksum metadata.

Instructions

Serialize supplied candidate records into JSON or CSV with raw and normalized scores kept separate. Use after candidate review for a table export; generate_report produces a broader report. Returns file bytes and checksum metadata, not new scientific scores.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run.
`format`	Yes	Requested structure or export format, as enumerated by this tool.
`categories`	Yes	Candidate categories to include in the export.
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Caller-supplied stable key for repeatable export identity.
`candidateSnapshot`	No	Caller-supplied reviewed candidate rows to serialize; no new scores are calculated.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether execution completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result fields on success.
`meta`	Yes	Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.
`error`	No	Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.2.1Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / candidateSnapshot / description

Added value: +"Caller-supplied reviewed candidate rows to serialize; no new scores are calculated."

addedInput schema / properties / candidateSnapshot / items / properties / category / description
```
Added value: +"Final candidate decision category being explained."
```
addedInput schema / properties / candidateSnapshot / items / properties / sourceStatus / description
```
Added value: +"Provenance label for the supplied structure or compound."
```

addedInput schema / properties / categories / description

Added value: +"Candidate categories to include in the export."

addedInput schema / properties / format / description

Added value: +"Requested structure or export format, as enumerated by this tool."

addedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey / description

Added value: +"Caller-supplied stable key for repeatable export identity."

addedInput schema / properties / runId / description

Added value: +"Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Tool-specific result fields on success.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.",
+      "properties": {
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "category",
+        "message",
+        "retryable"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "completedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "durationMs": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "inputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "outputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "runId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "startedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requestId",
+        "runId",
+        "toolName",
+        "toolVersion",
+        "startedAt",
+        "inputHash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether execution completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "meta"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that it outputs file bytes and checksum metadata and produces "not new scientific scores", and that raw and normalized scores stay separate — key behavioral facts an agent won't infer from annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three compact sentences with the purpose, routing, and output nature each front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still summarizes them. It is nearly complete; a small gap is that it doesn't clarify why candidateSnapshot is optional relative to the required filters, but that is covered by the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (runId, categories, format, idempotencyKey, candidateSnapshot) are documented in the schema. The description only echoes format options and the raw/normalized separation; it adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (serialize) and resource (supplied candidate records) plus the exact output formats (JSON or CSV). It also names the sibling it is not (generate_report produces a broader report), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it ("after candidate review for a table export") and names the alternative that covers the other case ("generate_report produces a broader report"). The routing decision is fully specified.

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

Deploy Server