Export a project's full memory from ctx-memory as Markdown text to paste into an AI client without MCP.
Full memory as text, to paste into an AI without MCP.
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": "export_markdown"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It doesn't state that this is a read-only/export operation, how 'full memory' is scoped, whether project filtering applies, or anything about the return format beyond 'as text'.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse for the missing behavioral and parameter context.
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?
For a tool with an undocumented project parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what scope is exported, whether project filters, and what the output looks like. It is not complete enough for confident 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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'project' parameter. An agent cannot tell whether this exports all projects or a single one, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 resource and output form: it exports the full memory as text/markdown. The verb 'export' comes from the name rather than the description, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like recall or get_context, but the format-based purpose is clear.
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?
'To paste into an AI without MCP' implies a usage context, but it never states when to choose this over recall or get_context. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance beyond the implied 'no-MCP' scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.