Skip to main content
Glama

Export members as CSV

export_audience
Read-onlyIdempotent

Export audience members as a CSV attachment with username, full name, follower and following counts, bio, and verification status for review or outreach.

Instructions

Export members as CSV. Required API key scope: audiences:read. GET /audiences/{id}/export Columns: username,fullName,followerCount,followingCount,bio,isVerified. Sent as an attachment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "export_audience"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter `id`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, and the description still adds real value: the required API key scope (audiences:read), the underlying HTTP route, and the fact that output is delivered as an attachment rather than inline data. It does not mention row limits or export size caps, which is the only meaningful gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then auth scope, route, and output shape. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only export with no output schema, the description supplies auth requirements, endpoint, exact output columns, and delivery mechanism—everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema's only parameter is documented merely as 'Path parameter `id`', so the description's endpoint reference adds the useful clarification that this is the audience identifier being exported. With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and this extra scoping nudges it up, though no format examples are given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (Export) and resource (members as CSV), and the concrete column list plus the GET /audiences/{id}/export endpoint make the operation unambiguous. An agent can distinguish this from list_audience_members purely from the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the file-attachment format, but the description never states when to prefer this over listing members (e.g., 'use when you need a downloadable file rather than paginated JSON') and names no sibling alternative. Sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.