Export all stored memories as JSON or Markdown to create backups or move data between systems.
Export all memories as JSON or Markdown for backup or portability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Export format (default json) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope ('all memories') and formats, and the verb 'export' implies a read-only operation. It does not state whether the exported data is returned directly, whether files are created, or any side effects/limits.
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 no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the scope, the formats, and the purpose.
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 simple export tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is exported, the formats, and the intended use case. It does not explicitly describe the return shape, but the behavior is predictable enough from the name and description.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of JSON or Markdown mirrors the schema enum and adds no new parameter-level meaning. The default value 'json' is only documented in the schema, not reinforced here.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export'), a clear resource ('all memories'), and specifies the output formats ('JSON or Markdown') and purpose ('backup or portability'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search, memory_add, and memory_clear.
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 'for backup or portability' gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the agent must infer the decision from the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.