chat-export-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

platforms_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists supported chat providers and shows whether each is enabled on the server and bound browser, so you can check availability before exporting or querying chats.

Instructions

List supported providers and whether each is enabled on the server and the bound browser. Requires browsers_bind for browser-side enablement; use before chats_* when unsure which platforms are available.

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": "platforms_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious dependency on browsers_bind and the fact that enablement is reported at two levels (server vs bound browser). It does not discuss failure modes when no browser is bound, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the returned payload is stated first and the actionable dependency/ordering guidance second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list with a strong annotation set and no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, the dependency, and the ordering. A slightly more precise sketch of the response (e.g. per-provider enabled flags) would close the remaining gap left by the absent output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; omitting parameter talk is the correct choice rather than a gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List supported providers') plus the exact per-item data returned ('whether each is enabled on the server and the bound browser'), and it implicitly separates itself from the chats_* family by being the availability-discovery step. An agent can tell what this returns without opening anything else.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires browsers_bind for browser-side enablement') and an explicit sequence rule ('use before chats_* when unsure which platforms are available'). It lacks a when-not-to-use clause, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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