Generate an Excel workbook of DealDesk deal intelligence for analysis, optionally scoped by project, view, and source.
Export Deal Intelligence workbook (Excel) for analysis. Bounded export path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | Workbook view (default overview) | |
| source | No | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId"
-]New value: +[]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet 'Bounded export path' is left undefined and gestures at a constraint without explaining it. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether the export is synchronous, size limits, or what the bounded path actually restricts.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('Bounded export path') is cryptic and does not earn its place given it conveys no actionable information.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the result and behavior, but it does not describe what the workbook contains, where the file lands, or how the caller retrieves it. For an export tool this leaves key operational questions unanswered.
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?
Schema coverage is only 67% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 'source' enum (intelligence/board) has no description in the schema and gets no explanation in the description, so the gaps are unaddressed.
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) and resource (Deal Intelligence workbook, Excel) with the output format named, which is clear. It is distinguishable from the list_/get_ siblings, though the trailing 'Bounded export path' adds no clarity.
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?
Gives only 'for analysis' as context and never states when to use this export versus the many list_/get_ alternatives for the same DealDesk data. No exclusions or prerequisites are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.