Save a JPEG preview of a PixInsight view and retrieve the file path for quick access or sharing.
Alias for save_preview. 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.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation and the return value, which adds useful behavioral context, but it does not mention whether an existing view/preview is required, whether files are overwritten, or any side effects beyond saving.
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 sentence with two short clauses: the alias relationship is front-loaded, followed immediately by the operation and return value. There is no filler or redundant wording, and every phrase earns its place.
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 alias tool with no output schema, the essential call contract is present: what it does, what it returns, and the required parameters are all clear. It is slightly thin on prerequisites and behavioral nuance, but it is mostly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 100%, and both parameters already have explanatory descriptions in the schema, including an example for label. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('save a JPEG preview of a view') and the return value ('return the file path'), and it opens by identifying itself as an alias for save_preview. However, it does not explain how save_and_show_preview differs from save_preview, so differentiation from the most relevant sibling is weak.
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 alias statement implies that this tool is equivalent to save_preview, which gives the agent a rough sense of when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over its sibling save_preview or over other preview-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.