export_rule_packPackage current ProxyKit rules as a portable manifest for saving, sharing, or importing on another machine.
Export the current rule configuration as a portable pack manifest. The agent can then save it, share it, or hand it to import_rule_pack on another machine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (exports the current rule configuration, produces a portable manifest usable by import_rule_pack), but says nothing about whether disabled rules are included, the serialized format, or size/limits.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the downstream usage in the second sentence. Nothing repeats the name or schema.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is exported and where the result is meant to go, implying the manifest is directly consumable by import_rule_pack. It does not describe the shape of the returned manifest, which is the main residual gap.
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 takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure.
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?
States a specific verb (Export) and resource (the current rule configuration as a portable pack manifest), and names the sibling import_rule_pack as the consumer. An agent can distinguish it from import_rule_pack, list_rule_packs, and install_rule_pack without opening any schema.
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?
Clearly explains the situation that motivates the call: save it, share it, or move it to another machine via import_rule_pack. It does not explicitly exclude or contrast with siblings like list_rule_packs or delete_rule_pack, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.