Export the complete VibeTape state as a JSON resource for external integration, backup, or agent handoffs.
Return whole state as JSON resource
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "export_json"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Query parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return', which implies a read operation, but fails to disclose potential behaviors such as large payload sizes, whether it includes all data structures, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that could be resource-intensive.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'whole state' includes, how the q parameter affects the output, or the format of the JSON resource. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema's description of 'q' as 'Query parameter' is generic and does not clarify its purpose or format. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so an agent cannot determine how to construct a meaningful query.
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 tool's function: returning the whole state as a JSON resource. The verb 'Return' and the resource 'whole state as JSON' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_timeline and export_md by emphasizing the complete state rather than a subset.
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 implies usage when a complete state export is needed, contrasting with the more specific sibling exports. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or provide exclusions, leaving the guideline partially implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.