Export paginated memories from a CueMap project using a cursor to navigate pages, with options to include cues, content, and metadata.
Export a cursor-paginated page of memories from a CueMap project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| project | No | Optional project ID. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. | |
| include_cues | No | ||
| include_content | No | ||
| include_metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cursor-pagination but says nothing about whether the operation mutates state, what the boolean include_* flags control by default, what the response looks like, or how pagination actually behaves across pages.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. However, it's closer to under-specification than genuine conciseness — the brevity comes at the cost of essential information.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, this description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine the meaning of the boolean include flags, the pagination mechanics, or the expected return shape without additional investigation.
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 only 17% (only 'project' is documented). The description must compensate for the other five undocumented parameters but doesn't explain limit, cursor, or the include_cues/include_content/include_metadata flags. The word 'cursor-paginated' hints at cursor and limit but provides no syntax or semantics.
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 states a clear verb (export), resource (memories from a CueMap project), and a key distinguishing feature (cursor-paginated). It's specific enough to convey the basic function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like cuemap_project_pack or cuemap_memory_get.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With 29 siblings including overlapping tools like cuemap_project_pull, cuemap_memory_get, and cuemap_recall, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.