Skip to main content
Glama
DanceNitra

inspeximus

by DanceNitra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_subject

Export a subject's complete stored data with provenance, correction history, and erasure tombstones for GDPR Art. 15 access. Use basis='portability' to produce a versioned, portable copy for Art. 20.

Instructions

GDPR Art. 15 access: everything this store holds about subject (a source doc identifier), resolved exactly as erasure resolves it, with provenance, correction history, the erasure tombstones already recorded, and the ledger actions taken while those records were recalled. Writes one rights:export entry to the action ledger carrying the export's manifest hash. With basis="portability" the same document is the Art. 20 response: labelled, with a versioned format and per-record portable flags, logged as rights:portability. Refuses an ambiguous subject unless allow_ambiguous is set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basisNoaccess
subjectYes
request_idNo
include_textNo
allow_ambiguousNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / basis
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "access",
+  "title": "Basis",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.39.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the side effect (writes a rights:export ledger entry with manifest hash), the portability variant logging as rights:portability, and refusal of ambiguous subjects unless allow_ambiguous is set. It does not cover auth or reversibility, but the key state-changing behavior is transparent.

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 dense sentences with zero fluff: purpose, side effect, and conditional variant each earn their place. The most important legal and scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

For a legally complex export with no output schema, the description covers the returned content (everything the store holds, provenance, tombstones, ledger actions), the side effect, and the main conditional path. The two undocumented parameters are the primary gap, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly using defaults.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates for the three central parameters: `subject`, `basis`, and `allow_ambiguous`. However, `request_id` and `include_text` are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their meaning or effect.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('export') and resource (`subject` source doc identifier), and frames it with distinct legal scopes (GDPR Art. 15 access vs Art. 20 portability). The content scope—provenance, correction history, tombstones, ledger actions—clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like export_audit_trail or registration_export.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context: use for GDPR Art. 15/20 access requests, and explains how `basis=portability` changes the response. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools