export_memoryExport scoped memory data as a mergeable JSONL bundle for transfer to another installation or sync transport. Filter by kind, tags, or namespace, and optionally encrypt.
Export a scoped, mergeable JSONL bundle for another Pathmark installation or trusted sync transport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| encrypted | No | Encrypt the export with PATHMARK_EXPORT_KEY. | |
| namespace | No | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| includeDeleted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral details not in the annotations: the output is JSONL, scoped, and mergeable. However, with all annotations false, it carries the burden of describing side effects, permissions, or external data movement more fully; it only says 'for another ... transport' without explaining what happens during the export.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and output format. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase adds meaning.
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?
Given six parameters, no output schema, no useful annotations, and low schema coverage, this short description is not complete enough. It omits parameter semantics, destination format specifics, merge behavior, and any relationship or differentiation from backup_memory. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully and still infer much of the intent.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, and the description does not compensate. It hints at scoping and merging but never explains the required 'destination', the 'kind' enum, 'tags', 'namespace', or 'includeDeleted'. The schema itself leaves nearly all parameters undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Export'), the resource ('memory'), and the output form ('scoped, mergeable JSONL bundle'). It also names the target context ('another Pathmark installation or trusted sync transport'), which helps distinguish it from a generic backup operation, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like backup_memory.
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 gives a clear context for use: exporting to another Pathmark installation or a trusted sync transport. It does not provide exclusions or explicitly compare with alternatives such as backup_memory, but the intended scenario is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.