Export the active Excalidraw canvas to a .excalidraw JSON file, preserving all elements for backup and sharing.
Export the current canvas to .excalidraw JSON format.
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_scene"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the export action but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires special permissions, or how file saving behaves. Minimal detail beyond the obvious.
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 concise sentence, front-loading the action and format with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and potential side effects, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.
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 only parameter, filePath, has no schema description, and the description does not reference it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no guidance on path format, required extension, or parameter meaning. The description fails to compensate.
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 clearly states the action (export), scope (current canvas), and output format (.excalidraw JSON). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_to_excalidraw_url and export_to_obsidian, which target different output channels.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_to_excalidraw_url or export_to_obsidian. The description lacks any context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.