flow_projeto_padraoSets the default Flow project used by tools when no project is specified, saving the choice to config.json for Claude Code and Desktop.
Escolhe qual projeto do Flow as ferramentas usam quando 'projeto' não é informado (fica salvo em config.json neste PC, vale para o Claude Code e o Desktop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projeto | Yes | Id, link ou nome exato do projeto (veja flow_projetos). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, the description adds useful behavior: the choice is persisted in local config.json and applies to both Claude Code and Desktop. It does not discuss validation or failure behavior if the project does not exist, but the persistence and scope are well disclosed.
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 no wasted words. It states the action, the condition, the persistence location, and the platform scope in one compact statement.
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 one-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what the setting changes, where it is stored, and which clients it affects. It could mention what happens if the project is invalid or how to clear the default, but nothing critical for normal invocation is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents the single 'projeto' parameter and its accepted forms. The description implies this parameter becomes the default when omitted elsewhere, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action (choosing the default Flow project) and the exact condition under which it matters (when 'projeto' is not provided). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like flow_projetos (listing projects) or flow_projeto_criar (creating projects).
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?
It clearly explains when the setting takes effect: when 'projeto' is omitted by Flow tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough for an agent to know this is a configuration tool rather than a listing or creation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.