Saves the open ArcGIS Pro project (.aprx) to disk, or writes a copy to another path while leaving the original untouched.
Save the ArcGIS Pro project (.aprx), or save a copy elsewhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save_as_path | No | Optional path for a copy; the open project is left untouched. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / save_as_pathAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Optional path for a copy; the open project is left untouched.",
+ "title": "Save As Path"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact — that save_as_path leaves the open project untouched — which is important non-obvious behavior. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior, error conditions, permissions, or what the output schema (which exists) returns.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the default operation, then the variant. No waste, appropriately sized.
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 single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. A brief note about overwriting an existing path or the return value would close the remaining gap, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the schema already explains the save_as_path behavior, so the description does not need to compensate. The description's parenthetical '.aprx' adds file-format meaning and echoes the schema's copy semantics without redundancy.
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 (ArcGIS Pro project/.aprx), plus the dual behavior (in-place vs. save-a-copy). Distinguishes from siblings like save_edits, save_layer_file, and export_* by naming the project artifact.
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?
Implied usage is clear from the description and the optional save_as_path, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of related siblings. An agent can infer the choice between in-place save and save-as, but no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.