Exports a DiagnosticSource definition in REST API format, enabling reuse with create or update operations.
Export a DiagnosticSource definition (REST API format). Output can be used with create_diagnosticsource or update_diagnosticsource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagnosticsource_id | Yes | DiagnosticSource 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the output format and its purpose as input to create/update tools, but does not describe the response shape or any additional behavior.
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 with no filler; the action and format are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the key consumption detail. Every word contributes value.
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 one-parameter read-only export tool, the description covers what it does, the output format's purpose, and how the result is consumed. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description explicitly states the output is usable with create/update tools.
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 single parameter diagnosticsource_id is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 ('Export') and resource ('DiagnosticSource definition'), and specifies the output format ('REST API format'). It differentiates itself from get_diagnosticsource by emphasizing the output is a reusable definition for create/update rather than a plain read, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
Explicitly says the output can be used with create_diagnosticsource or update_diagnosticsource, giving the agent a clear downstream use case. It does not mention when not to use this tool or when to prefer get_diagnosticsource, but the intended export-and-recreate workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.