Export a specific Lightroom Develop preset file to a chosen folder for backup, sharing, or plugin management.
Export one exact custom or plugin-managed Develop preset backing file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | ||
| preset_name | No | ||
| preset_uuid | No | ||
| preset_scope | No | ||
| preset_folder | No | ||
| destination_dir | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action of exporting a backing file and does not mention side effects, file system behavior, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens when the preset cannot be found. This is minimally informative but not misleading.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource type, but its brevity comes at the cost of needed detail. Still, it earns the conciseness score for lack of fluff.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with six parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions. The one-sentence description provides almost none of the necessary operational context—no parameter meanings, no identification strategy, no usage guidance, and no behavioral caveats. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool correctly.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It does not clarify the roles of preset_name, preset_uuid, preset_scope, preset_folder, filename, or the required destination_dir, nor how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema-level descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb ('Export') and resource ('Develop preset backing file'), with the qualifier 'one exact' indicating a specific, non-bulk operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling 'export_develop_preset' or 'get_develop_preset', so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_develop_preset', 'list_develop_presets', or 'export_develop_preset'. The description gives no context for choosing it over siblings, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.