datalens_workbookexports_startInitiate a DataLens workbook export and get the export ID. Check status until success, then retrieve the resulting document.
Start exporting a workbook and return the id of the export.
The export runs on its own: ask workbookexports_status_get until status is
success, then workbookexports_result_get for the document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workbook_id | Yes | Workbook id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the operation is asynchronous and self-running, and it yields an export id the agent must track. It does not mention auth requirements, failure modes, or whether duplicate concurrent exports are allowed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by the lifecycle instructions. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description states the return value (the export id) and the follow-up polling/result steps, so an agent can complete the task. Missing only edge-case context such as error behavior or permissions for a 1-param async mutation.
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?
Only one parameter (workbook_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail about workbook_id. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ("Start exporting a workbook") plus the immediate return value (the export id). It explicitly names the two sibling tools in the lifecycle (workbookexports_status_get, workbookexports_result_get), so an agent can place it precisely among the datalens_workbookexports_* family.
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 description routes the agent through the full workflow: call this to start, poll status_get until success, then call result_get. That is clear context for when to use the tool and which siblings follow, though it gives no explicit "when not to use" or exclusion (e.g., vs. workbookimports_start or workbooks_get).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.