Export certificates and private keys from Windows stores to files, enabling credential extraction for security audits.
Export certificates with private keys
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store | No | Certificate store (e.g., my, root, ca) | |
| export | No | Export certificates to files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the high-level action and does not indicate whether this reads the certificate store, requires privileges, writes files, or has other side effects. The export boolean hint lives in the schema, not the description.
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 six words with no filler and a clear front-loaded verb. It is very concise, though its brevity leaves some behavioral context to be inferred; every word still earns its place.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether exporting writes files when export=true, or what happens when invoked with no arguments. An agent is left to infer expected behavior from the tool name and schema alone.
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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's explanations of 'store' and 'export', but it does not need to because the schema already documents both parameters.
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 states a concrete action ('Export') and a specific resource ('certificates with private keys'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling mimikatz tools focused on credentials, Kerberos, and SAM. The purpose is immediately obvious and 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The resource name implies this is for certificate-related tasks, but the description neither states when to choose it over other mimikatz tools nor mentions prerequisites. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.