erinys_save_promptSaves a user prompt to record intent and goals, optionally tied to a project or session, so AI agents can preserve task context and revisit goals.
Save a user prompt to track intent and goals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| session_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/persistence operation but says nothing about idempotency, deduplication, whether session_id/project affect storage, permission requirements, or what is returned; 'track intent and goals' is the only extra hint.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of the routing and parameter detail an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description omits the behavioral and parameter context an agent needs to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. 'User prompt' loosely maps to content, but project and session_id receive no explanation of format or effect anywhere.
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 and resource ('Save a user prompt') plus intent ('track intent and goals'), which is clearer than a bare 'save'. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like erinys_save or erinys_batch_save, so an agent must infer the difference.
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 versus erinys_save, erinys_batch_save, or erinys_session_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left with only the generic 'save a prompt' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.