togaf10_EAP_MCP

List exported files

list_exports

List previously exported reports and deliverables sorted newest first, showing file path, size, and last modified time to quickly locate or verify outputs.

Instructions

これまでに書き出したレポート・成果物をパス・サイズ・更新日時付きで新しい順に一覧。 / List previously exported reports and deliverables with path, size, and mtime, newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_exports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	出力言語 / Output language	both
`limit`	No	最大件数 / Maximum files to list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals meaningful behavior: newest-first ordering and the fields included in the listing. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but 'list' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the disclosed behavior is adequate for this simple tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences, one in Japanese and one in English, with no filler. The essential facts—resource, returned fields, and ordering—are front-loaded, and every clause 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?

For a two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what will be returned and in what order. Minor gaps remain around the exact response envelope and empty-list behavior, but these are not critical given the simple scope.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both lang and limit, including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'List previously exported reports and deliverables.' It also names returned fields (path, size, mtime) and sort order (newest first). The phrase 'previously exported' helps distinguish it from export-related tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 use case is implied clearly: list prior exports rather than create them. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools like list_archimate_types, list_engagements, export_report, or export_deliverable, and it names no alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server