workflows_exportExport an existing workflow as JSON for backup, migration, or round-trip re-import, writing to stdout or a file.
Export an existing workflow to JSON (round-trippable with seed)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Workflow ID to export | |
| output | No | Write to FILE instead of stdout |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description explains none of that: it never says that providing 'output' writes/overwrites a file, nor why an 'export' is considered destructive. It does add one real behavioral trait beyond the annotations, the round-trip fidelity guarantee with workflows_seed, which is why this is not lower.
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; the essential action and output format come first and the round-trip property is a compact qualifier.
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 output schema, the description does usefully characterize the return payload ('to JSON', round-trippable), which is the key thing an agent needs for a 2-parameter tool. It is close to complete, missing only the file-overwrite behavior implied by the optional output parameter.
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 both parameters (id, output) are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the parameter work.
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 and resource (export an existing workflow) plus the output format (JSON). The parenthetical '(round-trippable with seed)' implicitly distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like workflows_get by pointing at the import counterpart, but does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it exports a workflow given an id, and the seed reference hints the output can be re-imported. There is no explicit when-to-use vs workflows_get / workflows_list guidance, and no when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.