Origin MCP

by ZNaiGaomu

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

origin_export_graph

Export the active or named Origin graph to an image or PDF file, enabling easy sharing and documentation.

Instructions

Export the active or named Origin graph to an image/PDF file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Filesystem path consumed or produced by this tool; see the tool description.
`width`	No	Export width in pixels; zero preserves Origin's default export width.
`overwrite`	No	Whether an existing output file may be replaced.
`graph_name`	No	Origin graph page name. Omit to use the active graph or create a new page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral details such as what happens if the file exists (handled by overwrite parameter but not described), how file format is determined, or the effect on the Origin graph. The mention of 'create a new page' for graph_name is in the schema but not in the description.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Very concise, though it could incorporate more usage guidance or behavioral context without losing brevity. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description lacks context on the export process, file format handling, and interaction with the active graph. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves some gaps.

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 each parameter having a description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the action (Export), resource (Origin graph), and output format (image/PDF). It distinguishes from siblings like origin_view_graph (viewing) and origin_format_graph (formatting). The verb and resource are specific.

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 description implies usage for exporting graphs to files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., origin_format_graph for in-memory formatting) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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