Export the current Inkscape document, including unsaved edits, to a chosen path as SVG without changing the file the window is editing.
Write the live document (unsaved changes included) to path as Inkscape SVG. Does not change
which file the window is editing; the user saves the real file with Cmd+S.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses that unsaved changes are included and that the active editing file is not changed. However, it does not state whether an existing file at `path` is overwritten, what happens on write failure, or any permission requirements.
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 tightly written sentences front-load the action and immediately add the key non-obvious behavior. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying purpose and scope.
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 one-parameter write tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and two important behavioral traits. It could be more complete on overwrite/error semantics, but return-value explanation is correctly omitted because an output schema exists.
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%, so the description must compensate for the sole `path` parameter. It clarifies that `path` is the destination for an Inkscape SVG write, but does not specify path format, extension expectations, or relative/absolute path behavior.
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 verb and resource: write the live document, including unsaved changes, to `path` as Inkscape SVG. It also distinguishes the operation from saving the real file, so the agent can understand what this tool does without opening 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?
It gives clear context for use: save a copy of the live document without changing the file the window is editing. It also states the contrasting user action, Cmd+S for the real save, but does not explicitly compare itself to MCP siblings such as `export`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.