Export a project and all its environments as a portable JSON object, optionally including credentials and cookies when secrets are required.
Export a project (including all its environments) as a portable JSON object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ID of the project to export | |
| confirmSecrets | No | Must be true when includeSecrets is true | |
| includeSecrets | No | Include credentials and cookies instead of masking them |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authorization requirements, whether masking is the default, how large the payload may be, or that the operation is non-destructive. 'Portable JSON object' is the sole hint at return shape, and it is thin for a tool that can include credentials.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier in parentheses and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure economy.
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?
For a 3-param export with a secrets toggle and no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces at a high level but omits safety/permission context and the re-import counterpart. The fully documented schema compensates for much but not all of the gap.
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 100%, including the confirmSecrets/includeSecrets dependency, so the schema does the heavy lifting ('Must be true when includeSecrets is true'). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 and resource ('Export a project') and clarifies scope with 'including all its environments', which implicitly separates it from env_export and history_export. It stops short of naming the siblings it contrasts with, so an agent must infer the 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the obvious pairing with project_import for backup/migration workflows. The only usage-like signal is the scope note about environments, which is about content, not invocation conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.