Skip to main content
Glama

manage_export

List available genealogy exporters, inspect their options, or generate export files such as GEDCOM or Gramps XML. Run exports synchronously or asynchronously with configurable filters.

Instructions

List exporters or produce an export file (GEDCOM, Gramps XML...). Writes: run.

action=list returns every available exporter (GET /exporters/); action=info describes one exporter (GET /exporters/); action=run starts an asynchronous export (POST /exporters//file) and returns a task reference (poll with manage_transaction or re-call to fetch); action=file runs a synchronous export (GET /exporters//file) and returns the file as base64. Exports run on the whole tree unless filtered; pass options as a dict of query params: compress, living (IncludeAll/FullNameOnly/LastNameOnly/ReplaceCompleteName/ExcludeAll), private, person, event, note, reference, sequence, handle, gramps_id, years_after_death, current_year, locale, include_individuals, include_children, include_marriages, include_places, include_media, include_witnesses, translate_headers. Extensions: ged, gramps, gw, csv, etc.

Args: action: "list", "info", "run" or "file". extension: Exporter extension (e.g. 'ged' or 'gramps'); required for info, run, file. options: Dict of export option query parameters (see docstring). instance: Gramps Web base URL from get_instances; default = first.

Returns: dict: {"status", "url", "data": exporter list, task ref, or base64 file}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
optionsNo
instanceNo
extensionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that run is an asynchronous operation returning a task reference, file is synchronous returning base64, and exports apply to the whole tree unless filtered. It also flags 'Writes: run' as a side-effect indicator. Missing auth and failure details, but this is solid behavioral coverage.

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 dense but organized: an opening summary, action-by-action bullets, a filtering note, an options list, and an Args/Returns layout. The long options list is justified because the schema has no descriptions. There is minimal filler, though the length is near the upper bound.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description supplies nearly everything needed: action semantics, extension constraints, option keys, instance defaulting, return shape, and async polling guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without opening other resources.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and no enum values are provided, so the description must define the parameters. It does: action values are listed as 'list', 'info', 'run', 'file'; extension is described as required for info/run/file with examples; options is explained as a dict of query parameters with many named keys; and instance is given a default. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('exporters'/'export file') and concrete verbs for each mode: list, info, run, file. It also names file formats (GEDCOM, Gramps XML, CSV), which distinguishes it from siblings like manage_import and manage_report.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear per-action guidance: use list to enumerate exporters, info to describe one, run for asynchronous export, and file for synchronous base64 export. It also points to manage_transaction for polling. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other management tools, but the action breakdown provides strong contextual guidance.

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