Export current scene's print settings to a .fps file, enabling reuse with create_scene for consistent printing setups.
Export the scene's print settings to a .fps file for reuse with create_scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| scene_id | No | Scene id; omit for the default scene | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the useful context that it export settings for reuse with create_scene, but it does not disclose details such as whether an existing .fps file will be overwritten or how file paths are resolved. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence that packs the action, target, format, and downstream purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and earns every word.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves gaps: it does not clarify file path semantics, overwrite behavior, or what the tool returns on success/failure. The destructive annotation partially covers the risk profile, but the missing file semantics prevent a higher score.
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 only 50% because the required 'file' parameter has no description. The description does not compensate by explaining the 'file' parameter's meaning beyond the implicit '.fps file' target, nor does it add detail about path requirements or extension handling. The optional 'scene_id' is already documented in the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and names the exact resource ('scene's print settings') and output format ('.fps file'). It also states the intended purpose ('for reuse with create_scene'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling export tools like save_form and save_screenshot.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: before or in preparation for create_scene. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the stated purpose is enough for an agent to select it correctly in most workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.