Export the current SketchUp model to a 3D or 2D file by providing a destination path and choosing the format via its extension. Some formats require SketchUp Pro.
Export the model to a 3D/2D file chosen by extension (dae, obj, stl, fbx, dwg, dxf, 3ds...). Some formats require SketchUp Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this writes rather than reads. The description adds useful context (extension-driven format selection, Pro licensing requirement) but never explains what is actually destructive — e.g. whether an existing file at path is overwritten, or what happens on an unsupported extension.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core mechanism (extension chooses format) is front-loaded and the licensing caveat follows immediately after.
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?
There is no output schema, one required parameter, and mutation-style annotations. The description covers format selection and licensing, but for a file-writing tool it leaves the agent guessing about overwrite semantics, path resolution, and what the call returns on success or failure.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It does add real meaning by explaining that the path's extension selects the output format, but it omits whether the path is absolute or relative, whether the target directory must exist, and overwrite behavior.
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 gives a specific verb (export), resource (the model), and the selection mechanism (file format driven by extension), with a concrete format list. It implicitly separates itself from the export_png sibling by listing only geometry/CAD formats, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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?
The format list implies the situations this tool covers, and the note that some formats need SketchUp Pro is a real prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over export_png, save_model, or screenshot, and no stated conditions under which the call will fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.