Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-pool-mcp

agent-pool-mcp

by rnd-pro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

save_script

Save an automation script to the team-memory scripts directory for zero-token execution nodes.

Instructions

Save a local automation script to the team-memory scripts/ directory. This is useful for zero-token execution nodes.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "save_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory. Defaults to current working directory.
extNoFile extension. Default: "js".
codeYesThe raw script code.
nameYesName of the script without extension (e.g. "build-checker").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the action and destination but lacks details on overwrite behavior, permissions required, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, clearly communicates purpose and context.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It could mention return value or success confirmation, but overall sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds no new details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states verb (save), resource (local automation script), and destination (team-memory scripts/). It also notes utility for zero-token execution nodes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_scripts or create_skill.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description mentions usefulness for zero-token execution nodes but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it compare with sibling tools like create_skill or list_scripts.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools