Export the server's ledger audit data (receipts, checkpoint, rail extract, findings, guarantee, and counts) in a standardized JSON format for reconciliation.
Export receipts, checkpoint, and rail extract in the same JSON shape as npm run demo:export, with the findings, guarantee and counts of the audit over this server's own ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output shape ('same JSON shape as npm run demo:export') and the included audit content (findings, guarantee, counts). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.
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 sentence that efficiently packs the core resource, the output shape, and the scope. Every phrase contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler. It is slightly dense, but it remains appropriately sized for a zero-parameter export tool.
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 inputs and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides a solid output contract and scope. The main gap is that 'npm run demo:export' is an external reference and the relationship to cedulon_audit is not explicitly clarified, but for a read-only zero-parameter export this is substantially complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details that need explanation. The zero-parameter baseline is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter guidance since none is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and names the exact resources: receipts, checkpoint, rail extract, and the audit's findings, guarantee, and counts. It also defines the output shape by referencing 'npm run demo:export', which makes the tool's function concrete and distinct from siblings like cedulon_status or cedulon_audit. The only slight assumption is familiarity with the demo:export script, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 description implies the use case: call this when you need the server's own ledger audit data in the demo:export JSON shape. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when not to use this one, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name and context rather than from explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.