Snapshots the live engine configuration into the project .ioc file, saving both config and extended defaults so default-valued parameters are persisted.
Snapshot the live engine configuration into the project .ioc (config saveas + saveext, so default-valued parameters are persisted too).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extended | No | Also write project_ext.ioc with default values | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id |
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 does useful work by disclosing that it runs config saveas + saveext and persists default-valued parameters. However, it does not say whether it overwrites the existing .ioc, what prerequisites exist, or what happens on failure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The parenthetical technical detail is compact and relevant.
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 two-parameter save operation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the effect and persistence behavior. It falls short only on side effects like overwrite behavior and prerequisites.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that saveext persists default values, but adds no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond what the schema provides.
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 action and target: snapshotting the live engine configuration into the project .ioc. This clearly distinguishes it from a read like project_get and implicitly from project_save_as, though it does not name siblings.
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 description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it rather than project_save_as or other save/export tools. Usage is merely implied by the verb and file target.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.