Save the current QGIS project to its existing file or a specified path, preserving layer and project settings for later use.
Save the project (to path if given, else its current file). / პროექტის შენახვა.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default target (current project file if path is omitted), but omits whether saving overwrites, required permissions, error handling, and other mutation 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and fallback behavior. The bilingual translation is compact and does not dilute the core instruction.
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 a simple one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and default target. However, it omits when to use it over siblings and what side effects or return behavior to expect, leaving it only minimally self-contained.
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?
One optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description explains that path is optional and falls back to the current file, adding meaning beyond the empty-string default, but it does not specify path format, relative vs. absolute, or validation.
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?
States a specific verb 'Save' and resource 'the project', with scope clarified as saving to a given path or the current file. This distinguishes it from siblings like load_project and project_info without needing to name them.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_project, project_info, or export_map. It implies saving after changes but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.