Creates an on-demand copy of the active or specified Tally company data folder to Desktop\Tally Backups, so you can preserve current data whenever a manual backup is needed.
Take a backup of the company data folder now (copied to Desktop\Tally Backups). Write tools already do this automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | Company name as shown in Tally. Omit to use the currently active company. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the meaningful trait that output lands in 'Desktop\Tally Backups' as a copy. It omits whether an existing backup is overwritten, whether the operation is blocking for large datasets, and what the agent gets back on completion.
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 with the action and destination front-loaded and the automation caveat second. No filler, though the parenthetical path formatting is slightly awkward.
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 one-optional-param, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient: action, destination, and the key workflow caveat are all present. A brief note on overwrite behavior or confirmation would close the remaining 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 the single optional 'company' parameter is fully documented there, including the omit-to-use-active-company default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Take a backup of the company data folder now') and names the destination, so the agent knows this is an immediate snapshot operation rather than a listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_backups, but the verb difference makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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?
The sentence 'Write tools already do this automatically' is a genuine when-not-to-use signal: an agent can infer it should not chain a manual backup after create/alter calls. It gives no explicit positive trigger (e.g. before destructive operations), which keeps it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.