Export markup
roadflow_export_markupExport the current workspace as friendly markup.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
roadflow
by io.roadflow
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't state whether this mutates the workspace, whether it produces a file or string, what happens to the represented state, or any side effects. Without annotation coverage, this is a significant gap for an export operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise - the brevity reflects missing content more than careful editing. Still, structurally it front-loads the key information in a clear verb+object pattern.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description alone defines this tool. For a zero-param tool, the core purpose is conveyed, but it doesn't describe what the markup output looks like, how it relates to the sibling apply_markup tool (implying a round-trip workflow), or whether results are returned or written somewhere. Adequate for a simple operation but lacks the connective detail an agent would benefit from.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially complete since the schema is an empty object). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline 4. The description correctly implies there are no configuration options, though it doesn't explicitly state this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export the current workspace as friendly markup' states a specific verb (export), resource (workspace), and format (markup). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like roadflow_export_csv and roadflow_export_json, though the markup format is inherently different from those. It doesn't clarify what 'friendly markup' means or contrast with the CSV/JSON exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain when to choose this export format over roadflow_export_csv or roadflow_export_json, nor does it mention any context where exporting markup would be preferred. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools are mirrored across `artifacts_*` and `roadflow_*` with near-identical names and behavior, and within each family `get`, `export_json`, and `export_markup` overlap in what they return. Descriptions identify the target workspace, but an agent must carefully inspect prefixes and formats to avoid misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The set consistently uses lowercase snake_case with a domain prefix and predictable verbs like get, list, create, open, export, and apply. Minor deviations are bare commands (`new`, `discard`, `status`) and the parallel `artifacts_*`/`roadflow_*` prefixes, which make names look duplicated.
Tool Count3/5
At 23 tools, the surface lands in the heavy 16-25 range and feels padded because many operations are duplicated for two workspace types. Each subsystem alone would have a reasonable count, but combined the set is bloated.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the full workspace lifecycle: create, read, update via apply, discard, share, version, status, and multiple export formats. Missing cloud deletion and fine-grained element editing are minor gaps that can be worked around with full-state apply/export.