Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Saga MCP

Saga MCP

by spranab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

tracker_export

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export a full project as nested JSON, including all epics, tasks, subtasks, comments, dependencies, and notes, for backup, migration, or sharing.

Instructions

Export a full project as nested JSON. Includes all epics, tasks, subtasks, comments, dependencies, and related notes. Useful for backup, migration, or sharing.

Tool call template

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": "tracker_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject ID to export (omit if only one project exists)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds valuable context about the export's content (all entities included), going beyond the structured data. It does not describe potential size limits or rate limits, but given the annotations, the bar is lower.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value. The main action is front-loaded, and the supporting sentences clarify scope and use cases without redundancy. No waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description is adequate. It specifies output format and included content, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could mention intended output structure or size considerations for completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, project_id, is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action (export), the resource (full project), and the format (nested JSON), with a detailed list of included elements. This specificity implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracker_import or tracker_session_diff, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly gives usage context: 'Useful for backup, migration, or sharing.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not list alternatives or when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools