Package Arduino sketch folders into .zip files, optionally including build artifacts, for easy sharing or archiving.
Zip a sketch (optionally including build artifacts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | No | Output .zip path. Defaults to <sketch>.zip next to the sketch. | |
| sketchPath | Yes | Path to sketch folder | |
| includeBuildArtifacts | No | Include build folder in the zip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'optionally including build artifacts', which merely restates the includeBuildArtifacts parameter and says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing output zip or what happens on failure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the optional scope second. No wasted words.
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 simple three-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented, most of what an agent needs is present, and no output schema means return values need no explanation. However, the total absence of usage or prerequisite context leaves a gap for a mutation tool.
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%, with each of the three parameters documented including the output default, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (zip) and resource (sketch), with the scope qualifier that build artifacts may be included. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like export-binary or preprocess, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the sketch be valid first?), and no mention of alternatives such as export-binary. The agent must infer when archiving is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.