Saves the board currently open in the Inkboard desktop app (live mode) so live edits persist; it has no effect in file mode, where changes are already saved.
Saves the board displayed in the application (live mode; it must already have a file). No effect in file mode: every tool already saves there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the key traits: precondition of an existing file, live-mode-only persistence, and no-op semantics in file mode. It omits what happens if the board has no file yet (silent no-op vs error) and says nothing about return value.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the mode caveat. Nothing is wasted and nothing is redundant.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool this covers the essential context an agent needs: which mode it applies to and the file prerequisite. The only gap is failure behavior when the precondition is unmet, which the agent would have to discover empirically.
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 takes no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly spends no words on parameter syntax and instead uses the space for mode semantics.
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 ('saves') and resource ('the board displayed in the application'), scoped to live mode. No sibling tool performs a save, so the agent can immediately distinguish this from mutators like update_object or 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?
Explicitly gives the enabling condition (live mode, board must already have a file) and a when-not case (no effect in file mode, since every tool already saves there). It does not name an alternative action for file-mode users, but no sibling competes for this operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.