Export a client account and all associated domains as a migration bundle, with optional inclusion of password hashes and secrets for transferring hosting configurations.
Export a client account with all associated domains as a migration bundle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | Client ID to export | |
| include_secrets | No | Include password hashes and other secrets in the bundle (default false: redacted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the export action and scope; it does not describe side effects, whether the operation is read-only, where the bundle is returned/stored, or how secrets redaction behaves at a behavioral level.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. It contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the agent should expect as a result, such as a file, an id, or a download path. Given the migration-tool sibling context, more detail about the export artifact and follow-up steps would be needed for a complete calling experience.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing that the export covers a client and its associated domains; it does not add format, constraints, or interaction details for the parameters.
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 identifies the specific action ('Export'), the resource ('a client account'), and the scope ('all associated domains as a migration bundle'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like migrate_export_web_domain and migrate_export_dns_zone, which target individual sub-resources.
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 this tool is for exporting an entire client account, distinguishing it from domain-specific export tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling export tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or related migration workflow steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.