Export a single conversation as JSON or CSV from a paid Convocore workspace, billed against your monthly export quota.
Export a single conversation. Requires a paid workspace (hasEverPaid === true); billed against monthly export quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Export format (default: json) | |
| agentId | Yes | The agent ID | |
| convoId | Yes | The conversation ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the paid-workspace requirement and that the call consumes monthly export quota. It does not describe what happens when the quota is exhausted or whether export is synchronous, which keeps it below a 5.
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 zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
There is no output schema, and for an export tool the return shape matters a great deal — file content, a download URL, or a job handle? The description also doesn't say whether export is immediate or asynchronous. The billing prerequisite is covered, but the result contract is missing.
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% and the format enum with its default is documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format-specific or ID-format guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource ('Export a single conversation'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling export_all_conversations. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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 gives a gating prerequisite (paid workspace, billed against monthly export quota), which is useful context for deciding whether to call it. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of export_all_conversations or how it relates to get_conversation, leaving alternative selection implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.