Skip to main content
Glama

Save board

board_save
Destructive

Save the current board as a named snapshot, list saved snapshots, or load one to replace the board (load requires a baseRevision).

Instructions

Save the board as a named snapshot, list snapshots, or load one (replaces the whole board; needs baseRevision from board_read). Details: board_docs saves.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "board_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo[A-Za-z0-9._-], default 'default'
actionYesload replaces the board
baseRevisionNoRequired for load

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the key qualifier that only 'load' replaces the whole board, implicitly distinguishing the safe save/list actions. It does not cover persistence scope, permissions, or what a snapshot captures, but the destructive blast radius is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence front-loads all three actions and appends the destructive warning immediately after the action that triggers it. The trailing 'Details: board_docs saves' is awkward and slightly truncated but costs little space.

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?

For a 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition (baseRevision) but defers substance to board_docs and never indicates what 'list' returns or what a save captures. An agent must call another tool to complete the picture.

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%, so the schema already documents name, action values, and baseRevision. The description only adds the provenance hint that baseRevision comes from board_read, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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?

Names three concrete verbs (save/list/load) against one resource (board snapshot), so the agent knows the tool is a multi-action snapshot manager. It does not differentiate itself from sibling board_snapshot, which plausibly overlaps with the 'save' action, so sibling distinction is only partial.

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?

It gives two operational cues: load replaces the board, and baseRevision must come from board_read. It offers no explicit when-to-use vs board_snapshot or board_library, and defers detail to board_docs rather than stating selection criteria.

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