Export GSA model and results tables to CSV files, setting delimiter, decimal points, and whether to include combinations or interesting points.
Export model and results tables as CSV files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathname | Yes | ||
| delimiter | No | , | |
| num_point | No | ||
| combinations | No | ||
| interesting_points | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 does not say whether existing files at the path are overwritten, what error occurs on an invalid path, whether the export blocks until completion, or what file naming convention is used for multiple tables — all material for a tool that writes files to disk.
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 wasted words, which is good structurally. However, for a five-parameter tool with side effects, one sentence is under-specified rather than appropriately tight.
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 formatting need not be described, but that is the only mitigating factor. With five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and file-writing side effects, the description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
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% and the description names no parameters at all. The five inputs — pathname, delimiter, num_point, combinations, interesting_points — are completely opaque; it is not evident what 'num_point', 'combinations', or 'interesting_points' control in the export.
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?
States a concrete verb+resource pair: exporting model and results tables to CSV files. An agent knows what the tool produces, but the description never distinguishes it from file-output siblings like gsa_save, gsa_save_as, or gsa_save_view_to_file, so it is clear without being differentiating.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. whether a model must be open, cases analysed, or results computed first), and no mention of alternatives such as gsa_save or other output-extraction tools. The agent must infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.