Export a datasource definition in REST API format for reuse with create_datasource or update_datasource.
Export a datasource definition (REST API format). Output can be used with create_datasource or update_datasource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datasource_id | Yes | Datasource ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is in REST API format, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations, and it also implies the export is non-mutating and reusable, consistent with the annotations.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint (output usable with create/update) is placed in the second sentence, maintaining a logical flow.
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 simple export tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it exports, in what format, and how the output can be used. The annotations already provide the safety profile, so no additional behavioral caveats are needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for datasource_id, and the description does not add further parameter-level details. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description does not need to compensate.
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 (datasource definition), and specifies the output format (REST API format). It differentiates itself from siblings like get_datasource by emphasizing the export-for-reuse purpose, making it distinct from a simple retrieval operation.
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 description explicitly states that the output can be used with create_datasource or update_datasource, giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for just viewing, use get_datasource), but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.