yorai_download_fileSave a Yorai job output or file to disk before results are purged after 14 days, using the configured download directory or default folder.
Save a Yorai file (e.g. a job output id) to disk on the machine running this MCP server. Yorai purges results after 14 days. Default folder: YORAI_DOWNLOAD_DIR or ~/Downloads/yorai.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| filename | No | ||
| save_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose two important traits: the file lands on the machine running the MCP server (not the caller's machine) and the destination defaults come from YORAI_DOWNLOAD_DIR or ~/Downloads/yorai. It omits overwrite behavior when filename collides, permission requirements, and whether the saved path is returned.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each carries information (destination machine, retention limit, default directory). No filler.
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?
A no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three undocumented parameters needs more than this: the description is silent on the return value (e.g. the written path), filename semantics, and collision handling, leaving the agent to guess on a filesystem-mutating operation.
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 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'id' (ambiguously, as a job output id) and explains save_dir indirectly through the default folder sentence; 'filename' is never mentioned at all.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: saving a Yorai file to disk on the MCP server host, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling yorai_upload_file. The parenthetical '(e.g. a job output id)' muddies what 'id' refers to, but the core action is unambiguous.
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?
It mentions the 14-day purge of results, which hints at urgency but never states when to call this versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g. must the job have completed first?). No exclusions or routing guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.