Writes generated changelog content to a chosen file path, enabling export of Minecraft modpack comparison results as Markdown or plain-text files.
将生成的 Changelog 保存到指定文件路径
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | 要保存的 changelog 内容 | |
| output_path | Yes | 输出文件路径，如 C:/Users/xxx/Desktop/changelog.md |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a filesystem write. It says nothing about overwrite behavior if the file exists, whether parent directories are created, encoding, permission failures, or what the tool returns on success or error.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter tool. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity is costing information rather than just being tight.
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 2-required-param sink with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It is nonetheless incomplete for a write operation: overwrite semantics and return behavior go unaddressed, and there are no annotations to cover that gap.
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% and both required parameters (content, output_path) are documented in the schema, including a path example. The description only restates that a path and changelog content are involved, adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+object pair ('save the generated Changelog') plus the destination ('specified file path'), which is enough to separate it from the generate_* siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer that this is the terminal step after generate_changelog.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'generated changelog' hints that this runs after a generation step, and there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether the path must already exist or whether the file is overwritten.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.