export_leadsDownload all leads as CSV text so you can analyze or back up Instagram comment-to-DM contacts.
Export all leads as CSV text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return format (CSV text); it says nothing about size limits, row caps, whether the export is synchronous or paged, or whether it honors any account scoping. For a bulk export where volume matters, this is a modest but not complete disclosure.
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, stating action, scope and format. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity means it spends no words on the operational caveats an export tool usually needs.
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 parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint already set, the structured fields carry most of the load. Still, a bulk export tool leaves real questions unanswered: whether the CSV is returned inline or as a file/link, and whether very large result sets are truncated.
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 and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description's implicit claim that the export is unfiltered is consistent with an empty parameter set.
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 gives a specific verb and resource plus the output format: 'Export all leads as CSV text.' An agent immediately knows this is a bulk data dump rather than a filtered read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_leads, which reads similar leads data in a presumably different shape.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_leads, get_lead, or the other lead-reading siblings. The phrase 'all leads' implies no filtering, but the description never says so explicitly nor names an alternative for filtered retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.