Export an EventSource definition in REST API format for reuse with create or update operations.
Export an EventSource definition (REST API format). Output can be used with create_eventsource or update_eventsource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventsource_id | Yes | EventSource 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 the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value beyond that by indicating the output is a REST-API-format definition and directly consumable by create/update. It does not discuss dependency handling or response structure, but the safety profile is already covered by 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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence explains the downstream purpose of the result.
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, non-destructive export with robust annotations, this is nearly complete. The description tells the agent what the output is for and that it is in REST API format. It does not detail the output payload or edge cases, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 is fully described in the schema as 'EventSource ID', so the description adds no new meaning to eventsource_id. This is the baseline-3 case where the schema carries the semantic load.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Export an EventSource definition') and states the serialization format ('REST API format'). It is immediately distinguishable from read-only get_eventsource and from sibling exports for other resources such as export_logsource or export_diagnosticsource.
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?
It establishes the intended use: produce a reusable definition that can be fed to create_eventsource or update_eventsource. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.