Skip to main content
Glama

export_scenarios

Save generated test scenarios to a JSON file for storage and reuse in development workflows.

Instructions

Save generated test scenarios into a JSON file and store in memory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenariosYes
file_nameNoscenarios.json

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • server.py:35-41 (handler)
    The core handler function for the 'export_scenarios' MCP tool, including the @mcp.tool() decorator for automatic registration. It saves the provided scenarios dictionary to a JSON file at the specified path (default 'scenarios.json') and stores the scenarios in an in-memory dictionary for later retrieval via resources.
    @mcp.tool()
    def export_scenarios(scenarios: dict, file_name: str = "scenarios.json") -> str:
        """Save generated test scenarios into a JSON file and store in memory."""
        with open(file_name, "w") as f:
            json.dump(scenarios, f, indent=2)
        exported_scenarios[file_name] = scenarios
        return file_name
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving to a JSON file and storing in memory, but fails to clarify critical aspects: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Save'), if it overwrites existing files, what 'in memory' means practically (e.g., persistence, access), or any permissions/rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action, output format, and storage. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description's job is reduced. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one required), and nested objects in the input, the description is incomplete: it lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and parameter guidance. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that performs data export.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'scenarios' as input but doesn't explain its structure or content requirements. It mentions 'JSON file' but doesn't link to the 'file_name' parameter or detail naming conventions. The description adds some meaning (e.g., scenarios are saved as JSON) but insufficiently clarifies the two parameters' roles and expectations.

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 states the action ('Save') and resource ('generated test scenarios'), specifying the output format ('JSON file') and storage location ('in memory'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'parse_document' by focusing on export rather than parsing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate scope or limitations beyond the basic operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., scenarios must be generated first), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools. It implies usage for saving scenarios but offers no further direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/debabhinav1-hub/mcptestgenwithClaude'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server