Skip to main content
Glama
adrianczuczka

mason

by adrianczuczka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

save_snapshot

Persist a concept-to-files map as a project snapshot, linking feature names and data flows to implementing files so future sessions can find relevant code.

Instructions

Save a concept-to-files map as a persistent project snapshot. Maps feature names and data flows to the files that implement them. Persists across conversations — future sessions can call get_snapshot to instantly find relevant files. No API key needed — you are the LLM generating the map.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirYesAbsolute path to the project root directory
flowsYesMap of flow names to ordered file chains
featuresYesMap of feature names to their implementing files
removeFlowsNoFlow names to delete from the existing map. Applied before merging; only meaningful on incremental saves.
removeFeaturesNoFeature names to delete from the existing map — for features that were renamed or no longer exist. Applied before merging; only meaningful on incremental saves.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / features / additionalProperties / properties / type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Classification: \"capability\" for user-facing functionality, \"infrastructure\" for internal plumbing with no end user (DI/service wiring, config, logging, adapters). Capabilities are published to Confluence; infrastructure stays in the AI concept map only. Defaults to \"capability\".",
+  "enum": [
+    "capability",
+    "infrastructure"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / removeFeatures
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Feature names to delete from the existing map — for features that were renamed or no longer exist. Applied before merging; only meaningful on incremental saves.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / removeFlows
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Flow names to delete from the existing map. Applied before merging; only meaningful on incremental saves.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the full behavioral burden, and it partially does: it discloses persistence across conversations and that no API key is needed. However, it omits critical save semantics — whether the map is merged or replaced, and how the removeFlows/removeFeatures deletions (documented only in the schema) interact with existing data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the persistence and access notes. Each sentence carries signal, though the closing 'you are the LLM generating the map' is slightly rhetorical rather than operational.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with nested objects, three required fields, and no output schema, the description explains the data model adequately but leaves the merge/replace behavior and the effect of removeFlows/removeFeatures unstated. An agent would still have to infer how incremental saves behave.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including the feature/flow structure and the type enum. The description adds the conceptual meaning ('maps feature names and data flows to the files that implement them') but no field-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Save a concept-to-files map as a persistent project snapshot') and explains the payload semantics (feature names and data flows mapped to implementing files). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling save_partial_snapshot, leaving full-map vs. partial-map selection ambiguous.

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?

The description implies a workflow by pointing to get_snapshot for future retrieval, so its role as the write side of a snapshot pair is inferable. But it never says when to prefer this over save_partial_snapshot or generate_snapshot_batch, and gives no exclusion guidance for incremental updates.

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