CyberChef MCP Server

cyberchef_recipe_export

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export a saved recipe to JSON, YAML, URL, or CyberChef format for sharing, backup, or use in other tools.

Instructions

Export a recipe to various formats (json, yaml, url, cyberchef).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "cyberchef_recipe_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Recipe UUID
`format`	Yes	Export format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.6.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the format list and does not disclose what the export returns or whether it has side effects, though no contradiction exists.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It immediately communicates the action, target, and supported formats.

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?

For a simple read-only export operation, the description and schema cover the necessary inputs, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, there is no output schema and no note describing whether the export returns file contents, a URL, or another representation, which leaves a meaningful gap for agents using the result.

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 100%, with 'id' described as 'Recipe UUID' and 'format' as 'Export format' with a full enum. The description's format list largely restates the enum, adding no significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('a recipe'), and enumerates the target formats (json, yaml, url, cyberchef). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cyberchef_recipe_import and cyberchef_recipe_get.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipe_get or recipe_import. The word 'Export' implies its niche, but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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