Convert supplied rows to CSV or JSON output without creating files, neutralizing CSV formulas for safe sharing.
Retorna CSV ou JSON dos registros fornecidos, sem escrever arquivos; neutraliza fórmulas em CSV.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | ||
| format | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| mode | Yes | ||
| synthetic | Yes | ||
| account_reference | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value: it confirms no files are written and discloses CSV formula-injection neutralization, a security behavior found nowhere in the structured fields.
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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the return value and format, then the two behavioral caveats. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers format plus the two non-obvious behaviors. Given only two simple parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names the two concerns (format, records) and the CSV/JSON choice, but adds no detail on row shape, the 500-row cap, or the 100-property limit beyond what the schema already encodes.
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 ('Retorna') and resource ('registros fornecidos') plus the output formats (CSV/JSON), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but the sibling list is entirely unrelated (offers, reports, links), so the purpose stands on its own.
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 clause 'sem escrever arquivos' implies a use case (in-memory serialization rather than file output), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named. An agent gets no routing guidance beyond inferring from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.