Commit all pending garden design changes to the server, storing the current plan for later review and continued work.
Save all changes to the server
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "save"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "To the server" usefully signals a persistence mutation rather than an in-memory refresh, but it says nothing about whether the call errors when there are no changes, whether it is idempotent, whether it blocks, or what happens to concurrent edits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing — one extra clause on the save requirement would have cost little.
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?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is barely sufficient: it identifies what is persisted but omits the surrounding workflow (dirty-state assumptions, ordering relative to export_state/import_state, failure behavior) that the sibling set makes relevant.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies the operation is global (all changes).
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?
"Save all changes to the server" states a concrete verb (save) and the resource/scope (all pending changes, persisted server-side). No sibling offers the same persist operation — undo/redo, import_state and export_state are clearly different actions — so an agent can place it without opening a schema, though the description never names a boundary against those siblings.
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?
There is no statement of when this must be called: nothing about whether edits are auto-persisted, whether save is required before export_state or capture_preview, or what to do if there is nothing to save. The agent has to guess the workflow position of a zero-param mutation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.