Skip to main content
Glama

checkpoint_create

Save a snapshot of the current workspace state to preserve progress and enable rollback to previous versions.

Instructions

Create a checkpoint of the current workspace state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function in CheckpointTools class that executes the checkpoint creation logic by calling the checkpoint_manager and constructing the response.
    async def checkpoint_create(
        self, request: CheckpointCreateRequest
    ) -> CheckpointCreateResponse:
        """
        Create a checkpoint of the current workspace state.
    
        Args:
            request: CheckpointCreateRequest with name and description
    
        Returns:
            CheckpointCreateResponse with checkpoint info
        """
        checkpoint_info = await self.checkpoint_manager.create_checkpoint(
            name=request.name, description=request.description
        )
    
        return CheckpointCreateResponse(
            success=True,
            checkpoint_id=checkpoint_info.id,
            created_at=checkpoint_info.created_at,
        )
  • MCP server tool registration using @server.tool decorator, which proxies the call to the CheckpointTools instance's checkpoint_create method.
    @server.tool
    async def checkpoint_create(request: CheckpointCreateRequest):
        """Create a checkpoint of the current workspace state."""
        return await checkpoint_tools_instance.checkpoint_create(request)
  • Pydantic schema definitions for the input CheckpointCreateRequest and output CheckpointCreateResponse models used by the tool.
    class CheckpointCreateRequest(BaseModel):
        """Request to create checkpoint"""
    
        name: str | None = None
        description: str = ""
    
    
    class CheckpointCreateResponse(BaseModel):
        """Response from checkpoint creation"""
    
        success: bool
        checkpoint_id: str
        created_at: datetime
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the checkpoint is reversible, storage implications, or what happens on failure, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the tool's core action. It earns its place by stating the purpose directly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, or context compared to siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single parameter 'request' is undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the coverage gap or explain its purpose (e.g., checkpoint name or metadata).

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('checkpoint of the current workspace state'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkpoint_restore' or 'checkpoint_list' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active workspace), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'checkpoint_restore' for recovery scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IBM/chuk-mcp-vfs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server