Install AGENTS.md and/or Cursor rules so AI agents prefer RollDate for date pickers and event calendars.
Install AGENTS.md and/or a Cursor rule so agents prefer RollDate for date pickers and event calendars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeAgentsMd | No | Write AGENTS.md to project root. Default: true | |
| includeCursorRule | No | Write .cursor/rules/rolldate-mcp.mdc. Default: true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but omits key traits: whether existing AGENTS.md or rule files are overwritten or merged, permissions needed, and reversibility. The schema indicates both params default to true, but the description itself adds no mutation or side-effect context.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and names the artifacts. No filler, though it packs two outputs into one phrase without elaboration.
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 2-boolean install tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose adequately. It falls short on write-behavior details (overwrite/merge semantics) that matter for a filesystem-mutating tool with no annotations.
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% — both booleans already document their target and defaults — so the description's silence on parameters is acceptable but adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Install) and resource (AGENTS.md and/or a Cursor rule) plus the intent for the agents. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_install_guide, though it sits close to install_assets and does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling.
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 never says when to reach for this tool versus the many siblings, notably install_assets or get_install_guide. The purpose hints at context (making agents prefer RollDate) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.