Exports an agent template by agent ID for backup or migration, providing a reliable template instead of manually reconstructing its shape.
Export an agent template for backup or migration. For import/export, rely on these dedicated OpenAPI routes instead of trying to manually construct the template shape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | The agent ID to export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a template shape that should not be hand-constructed, which is useful context, but says nothing about what the exported template contains (tools, prompts, KB refs), whether secrets are included, or whether permissions are required.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The phrase "these dedicated OpenAPI routes" is a slightly vague referent that costs a bit of clarity without adding length.
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?
With no output schema, the description would ideally characterize the returned template (scope, format, completeness), but it only warns against constructing the shape manually. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap around return values.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The agent ID to export"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for agentId beyond what is structured, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Export an agent template") plus the intent behind it ("backup or migration"), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate this from nearby siblings such as import_agent, clone_agent, create_agent_from_template, or agent_backups_write, which all touch agent templates.
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?
"For backup or migration" implies the scenario in which to reach for this tool, and the second sentence hints that it pairs with an import route. But no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when NOT to use it versus clone_agent or agent_backups_*, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.