robot-tool-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

robot_export

Export ontology data to tabular formats (CSV, TSV, JSON, HTML, XLSX) with customizable columns and entity type filtering.

Instructions

Export ontology data to a table (CSV, TSV, JSON, HTML, XLSX).

The header defines columns using pipe-separated names like "ID|LABEL|SubClass Of". Use include to specify entity types (classes, individuals, properties). Use sort to order by column.

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": "robot_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	No
`header`	No
`export`	No
`format`	No
`sort`	No
`split`	No
`include`	No
`entity_select`	No
`entity_format`	No
`working_directory`	No
`catalog`	No
`prefixes`	No
`add_prefix`	No
`noprefixes`	No
`verbose`	No
`strict`	No
`xml_entities`	No
`extra_args`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the tool exports data and explains three parameters, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, return value structure, or the behavior of the other 15 parameters. The lack of coverage limits transparency.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses clear examples for parameters. Every sentence contributes, though listing all formats in the first sentence slightly clutters the primary action.

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 high parameter count (18) and lack of schema descriptions or annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers only three parameters and omits critical details like the input source, export path, format validation, and other options. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter guidance.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description. The description explains three key parameters (header, include, sort) with examples, adding value beyond the schema. However, it ignores the majority of the 18 parameters, so it only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool exports ontology data to table formats (CSV, TSV, JSON, HTML, XLSX), which is specific and distinguishes it from other robot tools like robot_query or robot_convert. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so it loses a point.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives usage hints for a few parameters (header, include, sort) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. This is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.

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