solodot-mcp

Export an approved Solodot run

export_solodot_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export approved execution assets as Markdown or JSON. Retrieve output from completed runs without writing files or publishing.

Instructions

Return an approved execution asset as Markdown or JSON. The tool returns content only; it does not write files, post messages, or publish.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "runId": "<runId>",
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "export_solodot_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes
`format`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying the tool returns content only and does not write files or publish, reinforcing the annotations. It does not cover error cases like unapproved runs, but overall it aids understanding.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states core purpose, and the second adds behavioral clarification. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a high score.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with good annotations and two parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details about error conditions (e.g., unapproved run) and return structure, which could be helpful given no output schema.

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%. The description mentions output formats ('Markdown or JSON'), which hints at the format parameter, but does not describe runId or provide additional meaning for either parameter. The schema itself provides basic info, but the description adds minimal parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the tool returns an approved execution asset in Markdown or JSON format. The verb 'Return' and resource 'approved execution asset' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like generate_execution_asset by focusing on export of an already approved asset.

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 description implies usage for exporting approved runs but does not explicitly compare with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks direct alternative differentiation.

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

Deploy Server