views_exportExport a Drupal view as configuration YAML or JSON for backup, version control, or migration by specifying the view ID and optional format.
Export a view as configuration YAML or JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | yaml | |
| view_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, writes to disk versus returning content, or has any side effects; it only repeats the output-format idea already implied by the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity export tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tool is low-complexity with only two parameters, but the lack of annotations and usage guidance means an agent still lacks context about prerequisites, side effects, and when to choose this over sibling views tools; the description is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by specifying allowed formats ('YAML or JSON') for the optional `format` parameter, but it does not explain the required `view_id` parameter (e.g., machine name vs numeric ID) or clarify format defaults/syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 a view.' It also names the output formats (YAML/JSON), so the agent understands the action and result type. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like views_get, views_list, views_execute, or export_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With many sibling tools such as views_get and export_config, the description gives no condition that selects this tool over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.