Scaffold a new Duck Framework project. Returns the required CLI commands and generated file contents for supported features with confirmed APIs. Unsupported features return documentation guidance instead of generated code to avoid guessing framework APIs. This tool does not write files. It only returns generated content for the calling client to add to the user's project directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| features | No | ||
| project_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it explicitly says the tool does NOT write files, that output is content for the client to place, and that unsupported features degrade to documentation guidance instead of guessed APIs. This pre-empts the most likely misuse of a 'scaffold' tool.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then fallback behavior, then the non-writing constraint. Each sentence adds information an agent needs and none restate the title or name.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by describing the return shape (CLI commands + file contents). However, for a tool whose `features` parameter gates which APIs are supported, the absence of any list or pointer to the supported feature set leaves a real gap.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define both parameters, and it only gestures at `features` ("supported features with confirmed APIs") without saying what values are valid or that it is a free-form string. `project_name` is never addressed at all, leaving naming constraints undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Scaffold a new Duck Framework project") and immediately clarifies what is returned: CLI commands plus generated file contents. That distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_project_structure, though it never contrasts itself with the closely named scaffold_blueprint.
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?
Usage is implied by the domain (start a new project), and the guidance that unsupported features yield documentation rather than code tells the agent what happens in the edge case. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as scaffold_blueprint or plan_feature.
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.