research-workflow-studio

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rws_repository_save

Idempotent

Registers an existing checkout with its exact server reference, letting research workflows track repositories without cloning, inspecting, or changing Git.

Instructions

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>",
      "record": "<record>"
    },
    "name": "rws_repository_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes
`expectedRevision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.2Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive, idempotent write with no open-world side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly ruling out cloning, inspection, or changes to Git, which matters for a repository-named tool. It still does not describe the create/update semantics or optimistic concurrency behavior implied by expectedRevision.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clear scope exclusion. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four required top-level parameters, a nested object with anyOf, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It explains the high-level action and non-Git behavior but leaves the agent without enough detail to construct a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely hints at 'checkout' and 'server reference.' It gives no guidance on requestId, projectId, expectedRevision, or the nested record shape, including the anyOf between an id-only record and a full record.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register an existing checkout and its exact server reference.' It also clarifies that this is not a Git operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby registration siblings such as rws_server_save or rws_code_register.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'existing checkout' implies the intended context, and 'Does not clone, inspect or change Git' gives a useful exclusion. But it does not state when to choose this tool over sibling registration tools or what prerequisites must be met.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.