Export 1C Enterprise event logs to a specified file path. Define time range or platform directory to capture system activity for troubleshooting.
Export the 1C event log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fmt | No | json | |
| to_time | No | ||
| out_path | No | ||
| from_time | No | ||
| session_id | No | default-18 | |
| eventlog_dir | No | ||
| platform_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'Export' implies some output artifact, but it does not state whether this writes a file, requires platform/eventlog directories, performs network calls, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with seven parameters.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential parameter and behavior information, so the single sentence does not earn its place relative to the tool's complexity. Conciseness is not a substitute for missing guidance.
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 seven optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. Even though an output schema exists, an agent cannot determine what parameters to set, what formats are accepted, or what the export produces. This is critically inadequate for successful invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the seven parameters. Parameters like fmt, from_time, to_time, out_path, and platform_dir remain completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and the resource ('the 1C event log'), so an agent can understand the basic function. It does not describe scope, output format, or distinguish itself from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to handle event log exports. Therefore it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The surrounding sibling list contains many tools, but the description does not explain how export_eventlog relates to them. The agent is left to infer the appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.