MCP Audio Studio

Export project

export_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export the complete project as portable JSON to back up, share, or restore your entire audio session.

Instructions

Export the complete project as portable JSON.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "export_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pretty`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds the context that it exports the 'complete' project, indicating full scope, and that the output is 'portable JSON', which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like output size, whether it returns a string or file, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's 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's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it omits details about what 'complete' includes, how the JSON is returned, and the meaning of the 'pretty' parameter. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.

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?

The only parameter 'pretty' has no schema description, and the description does not explain it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The parameter name suggests pretty-printing, but no semantics are provided.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'project', and adds the output format 'portable JSON'. This is specific and helps distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'import_project', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for backup/migration, nor does it compare with get_project or import_project. Only the implied use case of exporting is present.

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