Save a PixInsight view as a JPEG preview and get the file path for later use.
Save a JPEG preview of a view and return the file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Short label for this preview (e.g. "after_stretch", "final") | |
| view_id | Yes | PixInsight view ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the side effect (saving a JPEG preview) and the output (returning a file path), which is meaningful. However, it omits details such as file location, naming behavior, overwrite semantics, and prerequisites like the view needing to be open.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes: the action, the output format, the target resource, and the return value.
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 tool the description is adequate, but it lacks usage context relative to save_and_show_preview and provides no behavioral detail about file overwrite or location. The absence of annotations and output schema means these gaps are not covered elsewhere.
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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond referencing 'a view'; it does not, for example, explain how label relates to the output file path.
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 and resource ('Save a JPEG preview of a view') and explicitly states the return value ('file path'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling save_and_show_preview, so an agent cannot immediately tell the two apart.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. With a near-identical sibling named save_and_show_preview, the lack of selection guidance is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.