Export all locally stored AI assistant memory to JSON or Markdown files, with a configurable output directory, for backup, review, or migration.
Export all data to JSON or Markdown files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | json or md | json |
| output | No | Output directory | ./mgimind-export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that files are written and which formats are available, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, what 'all data' includes (secrets, vault contents?), permissions needed, or whether the default directory is created. For a filesystem-writing operation this is a significant gap.
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 short sentence with the verb and the format/destination constraint front-loaded. No filler.
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?
For a two-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the artifact types but leaves the write behavior, scope boundaries, and failure modes unexplained.
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% and both fields already document their accepted values and defaults. The description restates the format options and adds nothing about the output directory or path semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Export') and resource ('all data') plus the output artifacts (JSON or Markdown files). An agent can tell this apart from mind_import by direction, though the description never names that sibling or any other.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance. Nothing distinguishes this from mind_vault_store, mind_import, or mind_consolidate, all of which move data in or out of the store, so the agent must infer backup/portability intent on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.