Export call records to CSV or JSON, filtered by date range, outcome, call type, and record limit.
Export calls as CSV or JSON.
Requires scope calls:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ISO date or date-time | |
| from | No | ISO date or date-time | |
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | csv | |
| outcome | No | ||
| call_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely non-annotated detail that scope `calls:read` is required, but omits the 10,000-record cap, whether the export is synchronous, and how large results are returned.
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?
Two short sentences, capability front-loaded, with the access requirement second. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should explain the filter semantics and the result-size ceiling. As written, an agent knows what the tool does but not how to filter correctly or what a bounded export looks like.
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 only 33%: `to` and `from` are documented, but `limit`, `outcome`, and `call_type` have no schema description. The description adds only the format choice ('CSV or JSON'), doing nothing to explain the outcome or call_type filters or the default/exclusivity semantics of the date range.
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 verb and resource ('Export calls') plus the output formats, which is clearer than a generic list. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_calls or get_call, leaving the agent to infer that this is the bulk-download path.
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?
The only guidance is the required scope `calls:read`; there is no statement of when to use this over list_calls for paginated browsing or get_call for a single record. No exclusions, limits context, or prerequisites beyond the scope string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.