security_exportWorkspaceExports all workspace rows except secrets as a session-only JSON attachment, enabling safe workspace data backup or transfer without exposing credentials.
Export every workspace row except secrets as a JSON attachment (session only) (GET /v1/workspace/export).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered; the description still adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: secret values are excluded from the export, and the call requires a session rather than an API key. It stops short of describing delivery mechanics (inline payload vs. download URL) or any size/rate constraints on a full-workspace dump.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the scope, format, and an HTTP route for operational reference. Nothing extraneous; the endpoint path is the only mildly redundant element but is useful for debugging and tracing.
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 zero-param tool with no output schema, the description should still clarify how the JSON attachment is delivered to the caller (URL, base64 blob, or link expiry), and it does not. The core scope is clear, but the practical mechanics of receiving a full-workspace export remain unspecified.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a parameterless call, leaving no ambiguity about inputs.
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?
Names a specific verb (export) plus the exact resource scope (every workspace row except secrets) and output format (JSON attachment). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like security_getPolicy, security_verifyAudit, and security_deleteWorkspace, which operate on other parts of the security surface.
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 parenthetical '(session only)' implies an authentication prerequisite, but the description never states when an agent should choose this over other security endpoints, nor any exclusions beyond the secrets note. Usage is only implied by the scope wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.