headrush-mcp

by Haervwe

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

save_loaded_rig

DestructiveIdempotent

Overwrite the saved copy of the currently loaded rig; the save is refused unless the exact loaded rig name is supplied.

Instructions

Overwrite the loaded rig's saved copy. Refused unless the exact loaded name is given.

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": {
      "expected_name": "<expected_name>"
    },
    "name": "save_loaded_rig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expected_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the important behavioral nuance that existing saved data is overwritten and that a name-matching safeguard blocks mistakes. It does not discuss permissions or what happens to the previous saved copy on failure, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the destructive action front-loaded and the safety constraint second. Nothing superfluous.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter destructive save, the description covers the action, the guard, and the target, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. A brief note on the failure mode or relationship to save_rig_as_new would make it complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and 'expected_name' alone is opaque, but the description explains its role as a confirmation guard: the exact loaded name must be supplied or the call is refused. That is real meaning added beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Overwrite the loaded rig's saved copy', which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from save_rig_as_new (new file) and load_rig (read into memory). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'the loaded rig's saved copy' implies the precondition that a rig must already be loaded, and the refusal rule tells the agent what must be true for the call to succeed. No explicit exclusion naming save_rig_as_new, so not a 5.

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