Export local Twitter/X snapshots to JSON, CSV, or Markdown files, returning the absolute file path. CSV output includes formula-injection protection for safe data sharing.
Export an existing local snapshot as JSON, CSV, or Markdown. Returns an absolute local file path. CSV cells are protected against formula execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | json | |
| snapshotId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations set to false, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the tool returns an absolute local file path (implying a persisted file artifact) and it protects CSV cells against formula execution. It stops short of specifying overwrite behavior or file location, but for a simple export tool this is adequate transparency.
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?
Three sentences, no filler, with the core action and formats front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either a constraint (existing snapshot), an output promise (absolute path), or a security-relevant detail (CSV formula protection).
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation facts: what it exports, in which formats, and what it returns. The main gap is usage guidance (when to prefer x_export over x_review_export), but the operational behavior is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It clarifies the format dimension by enumerating JSON, CSV, and Markdown, and adds a CSV-specific safety note, but it never names snapshotId or explains how to obtain/validate it beyond calling it an 'existing local snapshot'. The schema already provides enum/default values, so the added value is modest.
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 names a specific operation ('Export'), a specific resource ('existing local snapshot'), and the supported output formats (JSON, CSV, Markdown), making the tool's job unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling snapshot tools by emphasizing the export/file-creation role rather than read/compare/list.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling is mentioned, despite x_review_export being a closely named export candidate. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Export', which is not enough to help an agent choose between export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.