Skip to main content
Glama

export_guion

Export the node-by-node analysis path with evidence and decisions as JSON and a self-contained HTML report saved beside the data, so the review can be repeated.

Instructions

The path of the analysis, node by node, with its evidence and decisions.

This is what makes the analysis reviewable and repeatable: every tool call and every recorded decision, in order. Saved next to the first file as .sima.json when save, so that the record travels with the data; with html (default) also .sima.html, a self-contained page in art's style: the steps in a table, a section per node with the evidence, the decisions highlighted (who decided, what was set aside) and the figures drawn at each step (they are saved in figs/ next to the files).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "export_guion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNo
nameYes
saveNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that `<first>.sima.json` is written when `save` is used, that `<first>.sima.html` is also produced with `html` (default), and that figures go into `figs/`. It still omits overwrite behavior, error behavior, and whether existing files are replaced.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core artifact definition and then moves into output-file behavior and HTML contents. It is dense but every sentence adds information, though the long semicolon-heavy construction could be split for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the generated files and their contents well. However, it leaves the required `name` argument and file overwrite/side-effect semantics insufficiently specified, which is a material gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful behavior for `save` and `html` and their defaults, but the required `name` parameter is never explicitly defined; the connection between `name` and the `<first>` file stem is only loosely implied.

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?

The description clearly characterizes the export as a node-by-node record of the analysis with evidence and decisions, which separates it from decision-recording or job-status siblings. It is weaker as a purpose statement because it is phrased as a noun phrase and never explains the unusual term 'guion'.

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?

The description says this record 'makes the analysis reviewable and repeatable,' which implies an audit/reporting context, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With siblings such as record_decision and study_estimation present, an agent is left to infer when this export should be called instead.

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