bb_save_projectCompile the current Blockbench project to .bbmodel and write it to disk; omit a path to reuse the current file, or pass one to save a copy.
Compile the project to .bbmodel and write it to disk. Without a path, the current project path is reused; pass one to save a copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| embed_textures | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the default-path-reuse vs save-a-copy distinction. But it says nothing about whether an existing file is overwritten, what happens to unsaved state, permissions needed, or what is returned, so the disclosure is partial for a disk-writing tool.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded before the parameter nuance. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage means the description is the only documentation available. It leaves `embed_textures` unexplained and omits overwrite/return behavior, which is thin for a tool that writes a file to disk.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the `path` parameter's default/save-as semantics well, but `embed_textures` (boolean, default true) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the surface undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb+resource: compile the project to .bbmodel and write to disk. That is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from plausible siblings like bb_export_model or bb_write_file, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick save over export.
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 only conditional given ('without a path... pass one to save a copy') is parameter behavior, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over bb_export_model, bb_set_project, or bb_write_file, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.