kompas3d

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

save_document

Save a native API7 document while enforcing extension matching, read-only state, and overwrite policy to maintain data integrity.

Instructions

Save a native API7 document. Enforces matching extension, read-only state and overwrite policy.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "handle": "<handle>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "save_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`handle`	Yes
`overwrite`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose three meaningful behavioral traits: matching extension, read-only state, and overwrite policy. However, it does not explain what happens when these are violated, whether overwrite is destructive, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then lists the key policy constraints, earning each word.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain usage context, parameter details, or return behavior. Given the large sibling list, especially save_model, more contextual guidance is needed to avoid mis-selection and misuse.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 bare parameter names. It only hints at the overwrite behavior and says nothing about the meaning or format of 'handle' and 'path'. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid arguments confidently.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Save') and a resource ('native API7 document'), and adds behavioral constraints that clarify what the operation means. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling save_model, but 'native API7 document' hints at a different resource scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_model, create_document, or open_document. The description states what it enforces but not the intended invocation context or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.