jp-lit-mcp

jp_lit_export_view

Exports cache-based lists, cross-search results, and re-extracted data to exports/ or output_path. Supports full export of refined results and duplicate-check notes without altering cache or session.

Instructions

export/write file。キャッシュ系ビュー（一覧・横断検索・再抽出）の結果を exports/ または output_path に直接書き出す。refined_results は全件 export と重複確認ノートに対応する。session 全体の調査ログを書き出す場合は jp_lit_export_session を使う。cache や session は読み取るだけで変更しない

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": "jp_lit_export_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`view`	Yes
`format`	Yes
`item_count`	Yes
`exported_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9May 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool writes files to exports/ or output_path and that it does not modify cache or session. However, it does not detail overwrite behavior or permission requirements. No contradiction with 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 three sentences with each adding value: purpose, specific features, and alternative. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly longer than necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's role, scope, and sibling distinction. Minor omissions like error handling are acceptable for this level of complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds context about what is exported (refined_results, cache views) beyond the empty schema, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool exports/writes file results of cache-based views (list, cross-search, re-extraction). It distinguishes itself from jp_lit_export_session by specifying that the latter handles whole session logs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (for cache-based view results) and when not (for whole session logs, use jp_lit_export_session). It also notes that cache and session are only read, not modified, providing clear usage boundaries.

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