celiums-memory

write_export

Export projects as markdown manuscripts with scenes ordered by chapter, including POV character and time markers. Ideal for clean previews or transferring to Notion or docx tools.

Instructions

Export the project as a markdown manuscript. Scenes are emitted in position order, grouped by chapter_id, with POV character and time markers as italic interstitials. Use as a clean preview or to ship into Notion / docx tooling later.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "write_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes
`format`	No	"markdown" only for v0.1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.5Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes output structure in detail (scenes ordered, grouped by chapter, with markers). No annotations, so description carries full burden, which it handles well.

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, front-loaded with action and format, then details. No unnecessary words.

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?

Adequately covers output and usage for a simple export tool. Minor missing details on errors or return format, but sufficient for likely use cases.

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?

Schema coverage 50% (format described). Description does not mention parameters, leaving projectId undefined. Does not add meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it exports a project as a markdown manuscript, with specific structural details. Differentiates from research_export by context, though not explicitly.

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?

Provides usage context: clean preview or for later import into other tools. Does not contrast with siblings or state when not to use.

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