Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hex-mcp-server

hex-mcp-server

by chuotdelongchamp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

hex-export-project

Export a Hex project to .hex.yaml format to back up, migrate, or version-control its project definitions.

Instructions

Export a project as .hex.yaml format.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "hex-export-project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Export' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether the export is synchronous or queued, size limits, or how the payload is delivered. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain what the agent receives (file content, URL, or path) and any constraints. It only names the format, leaving the contract incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter projectId has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or clarifies whether it accepts an ID, slug, or name. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description compensates for none of the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (project) plus the output format (.hex.yaml), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from siblings, though none of the listed siblings are export tools, so ambiguity is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools