Persist the current in-memory ontology store to a file, choosing RDF formats like Turtle, NTriples, RDF/XML, NQuads, or TriG.
Save the current ontology store to a file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Output file path | |
| format | No | Format: turtle, ntriples, rdfxml, nquads, trig |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states 'save', but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it overwrites existing files, or any side effects on the ontology store. Minimal behavioral information.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be expanded with more context while remaining concise. No structure issues.
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?
No output schema and the description is very minimal. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or if the file is created/overwritten. Given the lack of annotations, more detail is needed for completeness.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (format and path), so schema already provides meaning. The description adds 'current ontology store' context but no additional semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it saves the current ontology store to a file, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like onto_export or onto_convert, which might have similar functionality.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like onto_load or onto_export. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.