Tuner MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Checkpoint Export

checkpoint_export

Idempotent

Export a trained model checkpoint in the specified format (tinker_archive, peft, hf_merged) from a tinker path. Queue the export asynchronously or wait for completion using background=false.

Instructions

Queue a checkpoint export, or wait when background=false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	Yes
`background`	No
`base_model`	No
`tinker_path`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Sep 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / background
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond the queue/wait behavior. There's no mention of required permissions, potential long-running nature, side effects, or what happens on failure. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal value beyond what's already known.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with moderate information, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the core purpose but omits essential parameter guidance, making it feel incomplete rather than efficient. It could be more helpful with a brief list of key parameters.

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 complexity (5 params, 1 enum, background option, idempotency key) and zero schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not cover return values (output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it), error conditions, or format-specific requirements. An agent would likely need to inspect the output schema or guess parameter semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning. It doesn't clarify the relationship between format and base_model, the purpose of idempotency_key, or the effect of background. With 5 parameters, 2 required, and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent without semantic help for most parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('checkpoint export'), and adds an operational nuance ('or wait when background=false') that distinguishes it from simple queue tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling checkpoint tools like checkpoint_publish or checkpoint_list, leaving some ambiguity about export vs publish.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'or wait when background=false' gives a hint about usage modes, but it does not provide clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like checkpoint_publish or training_get. There's no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, so the agent must infer usage from the name and sibling names.

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