Skip to main content
Glama
SVerITG

Metis

by SVerITG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Metis — Export Background Pack

export_background_pack

Write a pack.json manifest for an installed background layer so another machine can install it. Records layer identity and document names without copying PDFs; local files get empty URLs to fill in.

Instructions

Write a pack manifest for one of your installed background layers.

Produces the `pack.json` another machine (or another person) can install from.
It records the layer's identity and the documents it contains BY NAME; it does
not copy the PDFs, and it cannot invent a download URL for a file that came off
your own disk — those entries are written with an empty url and must be filled
in before the pack can be installed elsewhere. Saying so is the point: a
manifest that silently omitted them would look complete and install empty.

Args:
    database: The layer's slug (e.g. 'ntd').
    out_dir: Where to write it. Defaults to backgrounds/<slug>/ in the repo.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
out_dirNo
databaseYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that this is a write operation, that documents are recorded by name only, that PDFs are not copied, and that url fields are left empty and must be filled before install. It omits overwrite behavior, permission requirements, and error conditions for an unknown slug.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and artifact, then the important caveat. The sentence 'Saying so is the point: a manifest that silently omitted them would look complete and install empty' is slightly editorial but does communicate a real failure mode, so it mostly earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (name-only entries, empty urls) for a mutation tool with zero annotations. Missing only secondary details like overwrite semantics and failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: database is identified as the layer slug with a concrete example ('ntd'), and out_dir is described with its default location (backgrounds/<slug>/ in the repo). Neither parameter's format is fully specified beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write a pack manifest for one of your installed background layers') and clarifies the artifact produced (pack.json). It implicitly separates itself from install_background_pack by framing the output as something 'another machine can install from', though it never names that sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The scenario is implied — export when you want to move a layer to another machine or person — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many siblings (install_background_pack, list_background_packs, audit_background_provenance). The agent must infer the routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools