@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_project_export

Exports a Taiga project by providing its project ID, returning export data or initiating an asynchronous export for backup or migration.

Instructions

Export a project (returns export data or starts async export).

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>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_project_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'returns export data or starts async export', which hints at asynchronous behavior, but gives no details on authentication needs, whether the operation is read-only, or how to handle the async response. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise and free of filler, though the parenthetical could be more precise. It earns a high score for efficiency but not top because it sacrifices useful detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description leaves important context unstated: the distinction between sync and async modes, what the returned data looks like, and any follow-up needed for async exports. The tool's behavior is ambiguous and the description doesn't compensate for missing structured output information.

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% since the only parameter 'id' is fully described as 'Project ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 states the tool's verb+resource: 'Export a project', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like taiga_projects_get. The parenthetical adds useful nuance about two possible behaviors (return data or start async), though it's slightly ambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with taiga_projects_get but the term 'export' conveys a different action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for downloading a project dump or that taiga_projects_get should be used for just fetching project details. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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

Deploy Server