mcp-csv-database

export_table_to_csv

Export any table from the loaded CSV database to a CSV file. Choose the output path and whether to include headers.

Instructions

Export a table to a CSV file.

Args: table_name: Name of the table to export output_path: Path for the output CSV file include_header: Whether to include column headers

Returns: Status message

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "table_name": "<table_name>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_table_to_csv"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table_name`	Yes
`output_path`	Yes
`include_header`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.6Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwriting), permissions, encoding, or error handling. Only the basic action and parameter roles are described.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. No wasted words, and the structure is clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple operation and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context on return values (status message is mentioned but not detailed), error scenarios, and output behavior. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description compensates with brief parameter explanations: 'Name of the table to export', 'Path for the output CSV file', 'Whether to include column headers'. This adds some meaning beyond schema titles but remains minimal.

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 clearly states the tool exports a table to a CSV file. The verb 'export' and resource 'table' are specific, and the output format 'CSV file' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute_sql_query' or 'get_column_stats'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools offer different database operations but no comparative context.

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

Deploy Server