Exports all current garden zones and pins as JSON, enabling you to save, back up, or share the design state.
Export the current state of all zones and pins as JSON
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": "export_state"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-style export and specifies the JSON format, but it does not discuss permissions, output size, or whether exported data includes only zones and pins or broader state. The basic behavior is clear, but richer operational context is missing.
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 definition is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. Scope and output format are front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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?
For a zero-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: it states what is exported and that the result is JSON. It could be more complete by clarifying the return structure or relation to import_state, but the tool's low complexity keeps this gap modest.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on scope and output format instead.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Export,' and names the resource scope: all zones and pins. It also states the output format, JSON, so an agent can understand the operation without opening the schema. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_full_state, which is a similar read operation.
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 use case is implied by 'Export,' suggesting serialization for backup or transfer, especially alongside the import_state sibling. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not clarify when to prefer this over get_full_state or save.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.