nimbus-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Save Pipeline

save_pipeline

Persist a pipeline graph into a project for display on the studio canvas. Automatically resolves revision conflicts with one retry.

Instructions

Save a pipeline graph into a project (visible on the studio canvas). Handles revision conflicts automatically (one retry).

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "train_graph": "<train_graph>"
    },
    "name": "save_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`subject`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`train_graph`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuine behavioral detail: revision conflicts are resolved automatically with a single retry. However, it omits whether an existing pipeline is overwritten or versioned, what permissions are required, and what happens if the retry also fails.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the retry behavior appended. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the retry note is useful. Still, a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested required object leaves important semantics (overwrite behavior, name/subject meaning) undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description explains none of them. In particular, the required nested 'train_graph' object, plus 'name' and 'subject', are left entirely for the agent to infer from the schema structure alone.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: 'Save a pipeline graph into a project', which cleanly separates it from load_pipeline, validate_pipeline and run_pipeline by verb. The parenthetical adds scope ('visible on the studio canvas'), but no sibling is named explicitly for differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as load_pipeline or validate_pipeline. Usage is only implied by the verb 'save'.

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