Export the current project configuration as a replayable CubeMX CLI script that recreates the exact project setup.
Serialize the current configuration into a replayable CubeMX CLI script (export script). This is the exact command list that recreates the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Optional output path | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the output as an exact command list, but does not state whether the tool writes to a file, returns script content, requires project-open state, needs save-first behavior, or has side effects. For a tool with an optional `path` parameter, this leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity.
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 two short sentences with zero waste and is front-loaded with the action and output. The parenthetical command form adds useful specificity without bloat.
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?
The description explains what the script represents, which is useful, but there is no output schema and no behavioral annotations. It does not clarify whether the script is returned as text, written to the optional path, or both, which is important for an agent invoking the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, with both `project_id` and `path` fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action (serialize/export) and resource (current configuration into a replayable CubeMX CLI script) and names the underlying command form (`export script`). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic project export tools by outputting a replayable script, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like `ioc_export`, `project_import_config`, or `cli_batch`.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as whether the project must be open, saved, or configured, nor does it explain when to choose this over `ioc_export`, `project_csv`, `project_report`, or `cli_batch`. The use case is implied by the purpose, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.