Export a human-readable listing of every script in your project to review and verify code before running it.
Export a human-readable listing of every script in the project (like export-binary/preprocess: review before running).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the output being human-readable and covering every script, but it does not go deeper, such as potential size or performance implications.
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 clear sentence with no filler. The parenthetical analogy is compact, though slightly cryptic, so it is concise without being perfectly transparent.
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 parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation when customization is needed. The annotation set covers safety, and the general purpose is clear, but the undefined parameters leave a significant practical gap.
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 coverage is 0% and neither 'path' nor 'target' is explained in the description. An agent has no way to know what these parameters mean, what values are valid, or how they affect the export. This is a major gap.
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 names a specific verb ('Export') and a clear resource ('a human-readable listing of every script in the project'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_script by emphasizing 'every script' and the review-oriented output.
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 'review before running' clearly establishes the intended use case: inspecting all scripts before execution. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.