Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
borer

borer

by imjustprism
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

save_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Saves a reverse-engineering session's names, comments, and types to a SHA-256-keyed .json project file under the output root; existing files are preserved unless overwrite is enabled.

Instructions

Save the session's names, comments and types to a .json project under the output root, keyed by SHA-256. Restore with load_project; an existing file is kept unless overwrite=true.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "save_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesOutput `.json` path, relative to the output root or absolute under it.
overwriteNoReplace an existing file (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Output `.json` path, relative to the output root or absolute under\nit."New value: +"Output `.json` path, relative to the output root or absolute under it."
  2. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds useful behavior: the file is keyed by SHA-256, lives under the output root, and existing files are preserved unless overwrite=true. It could have been more explicit about what overwrite=true replaces, but the safety-relevant behavior is mostly disclosed.

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 description is two compact sentences with no wasted text. The primary save behavior is front-loaded, followed immediately by restore and overwrite semantics.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers contents saved, path scope, keying, restore alternative, and overwrite behavior. It does not describe the return value or confirmation behavior, which is a minor remaining gap without an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds context around output-root placement and overwrite behavior, but it does not significantly deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: saving the session's names, comments, and types into a .json project file. It also distinguishes the opposite operation by naming load_project for restore.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly points to load_project as the restore alternative and explains the overwrite condition for existing files. It does not explicitly cover when not to use the tool, but the operational context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools