erinys_exportExports ERINYS observations as Obsidian-compatible markdown with [[wikilinks]] so agents can save memory notes to external knowledge bases.
Export observations as markdown payload (Obsidian-compatible [[wikilinks]]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | markdown | |
| project | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an export/read operation and mentions markdown wikilinks, but does not state whether it is read-only, what scope of observations is exported, whether a project filter changes the output, or if there are side effects or permission requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters whose behavior is not clarified, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 both parameters. It indirectly references a markdown format but does not explain the 'format' parameter's allowed values or the 'project' parameter's filtering role at all.
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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('observations') plus a format detail ('markdown payload', Obsidian-compatible wikilinks). It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like erinys_backup or erinys_recall, which could also relate to exporting or retrieving data.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as erinys_backup, erinys_recall, or erinys_get. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.