BotUyo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool saves the exported JSON to a local file (default or custom path), includes read-only apiKey for integrations, and returns the complete configuration. However, it lacks details on error handling, file overwriting, or response format, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in logical order (what's included, file saving behavior, usage context). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's structured efficiently for quick comprehension, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It explains the export process, file saving, and integration with 'import_agent_json'. However, as a mutation tool (exporting and saving files), it could benefit from more details on error cases or response handling, slightly limiting completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (agentId and savePath). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions savePath defaults to './agents/' and implies agentId identifies the agent to export, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific action ('Export') and resource ('full agent configuration as clean, editable JSON'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'import_agent_json' (re-import) and 'get_agent' (retrieve without export). It explicitly lists what's included in the export (agentConfig, apiKey, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for exporting agent configuration for editing, with a default save location and option for custom paths. It also names an alternative ('import_agent_json') for re-importing after editing, clearly defining the workflow context and distinguishing it from other agent-related tools.

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