cityjson_exportExport an opened CityJSON dataset to JSONL, OBJ, STL, GLB, or B3DM to make it usable in other 3D applications and pipelines.
Export an opened CityJSON dataset with cjio to jsonl, obj, stl, glb or b3dm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | ||
| sloppy | No | ||
| dataset_id | Yes | Dataset handle returned by cityjson_import, cityjson_open, cityjson_import_text, or another transformation tool. | |
| destination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the export action and target formats; it doesnot disclose whether files are written to the destination, whether existing outputs are overwritten, whether the source dataset is moutated, or how the 'slopy' flag changes behavior.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, core information front-loaded. It is easy to scan and contains no redundant clauses.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two ambiguous parameters ('destination' and 'sloppy'), the definition is too minimal. An agent cannot reliably infer how to provide the destination or what behavior 'sloppy' toggles during export.
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?
With only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly covers 'format' by listing output formats, but it adds nothing about 'destination' semantics or 'sloppy' behavior, both of which the schema also leaves undocumented.
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 ('Export'), a specific resource ('an opened CityJSON dataset'), and the exact set of output formats (jsonl, obj, stl, glb, b3dm). This clearly differentiates it from transformation, validation, and broader save tools in the sibling list.
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 phrase 'opened CityJSON dataset' implies the tool should be used after an import/open operation, and the format list clues the intended use. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over export-related siblings such as cityjson_db_export or the save tool, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.