Export a sheet from a STATISTICA file to CSV using the built-in writer, creating destination folders and supporting custom separators.
Export a sheet to CSV using the STATISTICA built-in CSV writer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out | Yes | Destination CSV path. Parent folders are created. | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the source file. | |
| sheet | No | ||
| separator | No | Field separator character (e.g. "," or ";"). Default comma. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether an existing file at `out` is overwritten, whether the source sheet is modified, or what permissions/state are required. The only behavioral hint is the implementation detail ('built-in CSV writer'), which is not operationally useful.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted in other dimensions.
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 file-writing tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits overwrite semantics, sheet-selection behavior, and any post-call outcome. The agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to predict its effect.
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 75%, below the threshold where the schema alone justifies a baseline 3. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the `sheet` parameter (string or integer, no description, no enum) entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('Export a sheet to CSV') plus the mechanism ('STATISTICA built-in CSV writer'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling save_spreadsheet, which is the nearest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 instead of save_spreadsheet, nor any prerequisite such as the spreadsheet being open or the source file existing. The agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.