Deere Ops Center MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jd_save_file

DestructiveIdempotent

Write assistant-generated text, such as CSV data or summaries, to a file in the configured output folder and return its path and size.

Instructions

Save text, such as a CSV or a summary the assistant has assembled, to a file.

    Use this when the user wants a result kept on their computer. Files can only be created
    inside the configured output folder (DEERE_OUTPUT_DIR); any filename that points outside
    it is refused. An existing file with the same name is replaced. Returns the full path
    and the size in bytes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	The full text to write to the file.
`filename`	Yes	Name of the file to create, for example 'north-80-yield.csv'. A relative path such as 'reports/2024.csv' is allowed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: path sandboxing (filenames outside DEERE_OUTPUT_DIR are refused) and overwrite semantics (an existing file with the same name is replaced). This usefully corroborates the destructiveHint=true annotation rather than merely repeating it.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage condition, then constraints and return behavior in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries information; only the return-value sentence is arguably redundant given the output schema.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what matters: scope, safety constraint, overwrite behavior, and return shape. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented with examples and relative-path support. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (save) and resource (text content written to a file), plus concrete content types like CSV or summaries. It is easily distinguishable from every sibling, which are all read/query tools, though it does not explicitly name one.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this when the user wants a result kept on their computer.' It also states the operating constraint (writes confined to DEERE_OUTPUT_DIR). No explicit exclusion or named alternative, but for a singleton write tool that context is sufficient.

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