Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Body-MCP

Body-MCP

by sspublisher2005-gif
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_export

Export stored memories to readable JSON and Markdown files for backup, portability, or local review, with optional filtering by scope or project.

Instructions

Export memories as JSON and Markdown (readable, portable, local).

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": "memory_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNo
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that output is 'local' and portable, but does not state whether files are written to disk, where, whether existing exports are overwritten, or whether the export covers all memories or a filtered subset. That leaves key side-effect information undisclosed for a tool that may touch the filesystem.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical adds some value about output character but is slightly redundant with 'JSON and Markdown'.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters mean the description must do most of the work, yet it omits filtering behavior, output destination, and return shape. For a two-parameter export tool this leaves notable gaps an agent would need to call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Both parameters, 'scope' and 'project', have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what they accept or how they filter the export. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to guess at valid values and their effect.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Export memories') plus the output formats (JSON and Markdown), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like memory_list or memory_search, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over memory_list/memory_search, and no prerequisites such as whether an export writes files locally. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Export'.

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