Export an image's polygon and circle annotations as COCO JSON or YOLO format for training data.
Export an image's polygon and circle annotations as COCO JSON or YOLO, same as the web app's export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | coco | |
| image_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. 'Export' implies a non-destructive read, and it usefully narrows scope to polygon and circle annotations, but it never states that no data is modified, whether output is returned inline or written to a file, or any permission requirements.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the operation and resource before the output formats. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. The description covers scope and format options adequately for a two-parameter export tool; only the file-vs-inline delivery behavior is left unstated.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It spells out the two format options as 'COCO JSON or YOLO', adding meaning beyond the bare enum values, but says nothing about image_id (self-evident by name) or format defaults.
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), resource (annotations), content scope (polygon and circle), and destination formats (COCO JSON, YOLO). An agent can distinguish this from add_annotations/replace_annotations/remove_annotations by the export verb. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when another sibling (e.g. get_image) would be preferred. 'Same as the web app's export' hints at parity but gives no selection criteria for an agent choosing among the seven sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.