relative-interpreter-mcp

Save snapshot

save_snapshot

Save a named snapshot to establish a restore point for the current model state. This allows you to return to this exact state when needed.

Instructions

Save a named, restorable checkpoint.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "save_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the result is restorable, but omits behavioral details such as overwrite behavior with duplicate names, any prerequisites (e.g., a loaded model), and what the tool returns. This is insufficient for a tool with side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks essential context: it does not mention whether the snapshot overwrites an existing one, any required state, or what the tool returns. No output schema exists to supplement these details. As a result, an agent would have incomplete information to predict the tool's behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The word 'named' in the description associates the 'name' parameter with naming the checkpoint, but does not elaborate on constraints or uniqueness. This provides minimal added meaning over the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('save') and a clear resource ('named, restorable checkpoint'), making it distinct from sibling tools like restore_snapshot and list_snapshots. It clearly states the core function without ambiguity.

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 description does not explicitly provide usage guidance or alternatives; it only states what the tool does. The context of when to use it (to create a checkpoint) is implied by the verb and the concept of a checkpoint, but no exclusions or comparisons to related tools are given.

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