export_memory_documentExport your account's food preferences, pantry, learned food memories, and read-only safety constraints as a portable ReceiptCal Markdown document.
Render the account's food preferences, pantry, learned food memories and (read-only) safety constraints as a portable ReceiptCal Markdown document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing exactly what data is bundled and that safety constraints are surfaced read-only. It omits any note on document size, auth requirements, or how the artifact is delivered.
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 sentence with zero filler. The verb and output format come first and the enumerated data scope follows, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the result, and it does state the format (ReceiptCal Markdown) and the contents. It stops short of saying whether the document is returned inline or as a downloadable artifact, which is the one remaining gap for a zero-parameter export tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments that do not exist.
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 ("Render") and enumerates the exact resources included (food preferences, pantry, learned food memories, safety constraints) plus the output format (ReceiptCal Markdown). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names its inverse sibling prepare_import_memory_document, which is the most likely confusion point.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the word "portable" that this is for extracting a user's data outside the system, and must infer on its own that prepare_import_memory_document is the counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.