Saves the running configuration on a Huawei eNSP device by exiting to user view, running save, and confirming with y. Use it to persist device settings via a session ID or name.
触发 save 流程：先 quit 退到用户视图，再 save 并确认 y。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id_or_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact interactive sequence (quit, save, confirm y), which is useful for predicting behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, session requirements, what happens on failure, or that this modifies persistent configuration. With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere.
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 that efficiently conveys the sequence of operations. It uses concrete commands (quit, save, y) which are helpful. No waste, but could be slightly more structured with explicit usage conditions.
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 complexity of an eNSP session tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, session prerequisites, or how this differs from sending commands manually. While the output schema covers returns, the description should do more for correct invocation.
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 0%, and the single parameter 'session_id_or_name' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't explain what this parameter is or how to obtain it. Baseline for 0 params would be 4, but here one parameter exists with no coverage, so description fails to compensate.
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 specific action: triggering the save flow, with the exact steps (quit to user view, save, confirm y). This is clear about what it does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like ensp_send_command or ensp_send_commands, which could also execute these commands manually, but the labeled 'save flow' gives it distinct identity.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus manually sending commands via ensp_send_command. The description implies it's for saving configurations, but doesn't state prerequisites like being in system view or needing a connected session. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.