Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CODE V MCP

CODE V MCP

by MERURUXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_lens_as

Save the current optical lens working copy as a new file at a specified path, preventing overwrites of the source or existing files.

Instructions

把当前工作副本另存为新文件；拒绝覆盖源文件或已存在的文件。

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "save_lens_as"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
sourceYes
raw_outputNo
overwrittenNo
bytes_writtenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the refusal behavior (no overwrite of source or existing files), which is real behavioral context. It stops there, though: nothing about permissions, what happens to the original working copy, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the constraint second. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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, and the save-as plus refusal behavior is covered. Gaps remain around what 'current working copy' refers to and the undocumented path parameter, leaving it only minimally adequate for a 1-param tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The name 'path' is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about its format, target location, or constraints.

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 ('save the current working copy as a new file'), which is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings like update_lens or create_lens. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the save-as semantics are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It communicates a when-not condition ('refuses to overwrite the source file or existing files'), which implies you should use it for creating a new copy rather than overwriting. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit trigger conditions for choosing it over create_lens or update_lens.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools