Create a named snapshot of a table in the server database to preserve its current state; this is separate from account save slots and portable backups.
Create a named snapshot in the table server database (native savetable). This is separate from TTCraft account save slots. Use archives_export for a portable backup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| table_id | No | Omit to use the active connected table. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds useful scope context (native savetable, not account save slots) but never explains the destruction semantics the annotations imply, e.g. whether reusing an existing name overwrites it or whether auth/connection is required.
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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, each following sentence doing disambiguation work that earns its place. No filler.
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 two-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling routing but omits the behaviors an agent most needs: duplicate-name handling, required connection/auth state, and what the call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive mutation.
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 description mentions no parameters at all. Schema coverage is 50%: table_id is documented ('Omit to use the active connected table') but the required 'name' parameter has only min/max length constraints and no semantics, and the description does not fill that gap (uniqueness, collisions, naming rules).
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 and resource ('Create a named snapshot in the table server database') and immediately disambiguates two near-neighbors: TTCraft account save slots and the sibling tool archives_export. An agent can tell what this produces without reading the schema.
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?
Names an explicit alternative ('Use archives_export for a portable backup') and a conceptual exclusion (account save slots), which gives real when-to-use routing. It stops short of stating general preconditions, e.g. whether a table must be connected first, so it is not a full when/when-not matrix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.