Save an image to a specific file path. Choose format and quality to control output.
Save an image to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to save the image to | |
| quality | No | Quality for JPEG (1-100) | |
| image_id | Yes | ID of the image to save | |
| image_format | No | Image format | png |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full path where the image was saved | |
| message | Yes | Status message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description alone must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It only says 'save to disk' and gives no information about file overwriting, required preconditions (e.g., the image must already exist), or whether this is a mutating/destructive 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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, this description is too thin. The schema covers parameter names and types, but the description omits important context such as overwrite behavior, file naming implications, and how this tool relates to quick_save.
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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline score.
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 states a clear action ('Save') and resource ('an image to disk'), so an agent understands the tool's basic function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like quick_save or export_session, which may also persist or save image data.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quick_save or copy_to_clipboard. The description only states what it does, not the conditions that make it the right choice or when to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.