Store reusable command templates with {{variable}} placeholders, optional categories, and descriptions to standardize and recall repeatable terminal commands.
Save a command template with variables for reuse
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Unique name for the template | |
| category | No | Optional category for organization | |
| template | Yes | Command template with {{variable}} placeholders | |
| description | No | Optional description of what the template does |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v8.0.4Does 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 does not explain what happens if the template name already exists, whether the save overwrites or fails, where templates are persisted, or what the tool 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the purpose immediately.
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?
For a low-complexity save operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the core purpose is covered. However, with no annotations, it leaves important mutation behavior such as duplicate-name handling and persistence scope unstated.
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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description adds only the general idea that templates contain variables, while the schema supplies the concrete {{variable}} syntax and field meanings.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save a command template with variables for reuse.' It clearly distinguishes saving from sibling actions like run_template, list_templates, and preview_command, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
The phrase 'for reuse' implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as run_template or list_templates, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.