Lists all modules and subprojects in a repository, identifying each as part of a monolith or multiproject architecture to provide a clear project structure overview.
Lista todos los módulos/subproyectos detectados en el repositorio y su tipo de arquitectura (monolito o multiproyecto).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or if it has side effects. The phrase 'detected in the repository' implies a scanning action but does not clarify the tool's safety profile.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. There is no waste; every word contributes to the tool's purpose.
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, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (list of modules and architecture type). An agent can invoke it without additional information. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description adds no parameter information. According to the rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly stays silent on them.
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 the tool lists modules/subprojects and their architecture type, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_project_structure, though the mention of architecture type provides some distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_project_structure. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.