Save the active PCB board in KiCad to persist design changes and prevent work loss.
Save the active board.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "pcb_save"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action 'save' without explaining overwrite behavior, whether confirmation is needed, or if the board must have an existing file. This lack of detail is a meaningful gap for a state-changing operation.
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: 'Save the active board.' It contains no filler and every word adds value. Perfectly concise.
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 the tool's minimal complexity (no parameters, no annotations, but an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention whether the save requires a pre-existing file, whether it is idempotent, or what the output indicates. For a standard operation, the core action is clear, but the lack of any behavioral caveats makes it only minimally complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to explain beyond the schema, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The simplicity is appropriate.
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 'Save the active board' uses a specific verb and clearly identifies the resource (the active board). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, as there is no other save-like operation in the list.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, such as after modifications or before export. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its placement in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.