refresh_project_cockpitRefresh the bounded project state shown inside an already-open 2ools MCP App. This app-only read does not start work, import files, or change the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Readable 2ools project ID already open in the MCP App. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false高中. The description adds that it is 'app-only' and 'does not start work, import files, or change the project', which provides some clarification beyond the annotations (e.g., it's not a read of the server but of the local app state). However, given the robust annotation coverage, the description's additional behavioral detail is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds information: the first defines the action and scope, the second clarifies the tool's non-mutating nature. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema, annotations that already convey safety), the description covers the essential usage context: it's a read-only refresh of an already-open project's state. It could briefly mention what 'refresh' entails (e.g., updates displayed data), but the current text is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter has a clear description: 'Readable 2ools project ID already open in the MCP App.' The tool description reinforces this by mentioning 'already-open'. However, the description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., edge cases, required conditions), so it stays at baseline 3.
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?
The description clearly states 'Refresh the bounded project state shown inside an already-open 2ools MCP App' with a specific verb (refresh) and resource (project state in the app). It also clarifies what it does not do ('does not start work, import files, or change the project'), which distinguishes it from mutation tools and other read tools like get_project or wait_for_project_activity.
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?
The description gives clear context: it's for refreshing the state shown in an already-open app instance. It also implies a when-not-to-use by stating it does not start work or import files formulating it as an app-only read. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling get_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 74 tools, many serve similar project/version/agent workflows (e.g., get_project vs get_project_context vs get_project_activity). Detailed descriptions help but the sheer volume creates selection risk for agents, especially between approve_version/approve_artifact_version and reject counterparts.
Names predominantly follow a verb_object pattern (list_projects, create_public_preview, update_project_mission). Exceptions like 'act_on_project_os_task' and 'build_from_conversation' are minor, but the strong convention overall makes it predictable.
74 tools is extreme—more than double the typical upper bound and far beyond what an agent can feasibly consider per task. The domain is broad, but the count borders on overwhelming and suggests lack of consolidation.
The surface covers project lifecycle, versioning, builds, agents, artifacts, feedback, and work assignments comprehensively. Yet there is no explicit create/delete project tool (only via build_from_conversation or start_project_on_engine), and no direct update to project metadata beyond mission/plan, leaving minor gaps.