Run green-flag scripts in the current project to start execution, or open a specified project by ID and run it to test and validate ScratchJr programs.
Run green-flag scripts in the current project, optionally opening a specified project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Project ID from list_projects or create_project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the useful detail that providing projectId triggers an open-then-run sequence. However, it does not disclose whether currently running scripts are stopped or whether execution is synchronous, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first and then the parameter-dependent behavior. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every word earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and annotations providing the safety profile, the description gives enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers the current-project vs specified-project distinction, though it does not explain what happens if no current project exists or whether the run blocks.
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 schema describes projectId as a project ID, but the description adds the key meaning that it is optional and selects which project to open before running. With 100% schema description coverage, this is above the baseline of 3 because it clarifies the parameter's role in the overall operation.
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 names a specific action ('Run green-flag scripts') and a resource ('current project' or 'specified project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_project and stop_project. It is a precise verb+resource statement, not a tautology.
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 clearly states the context: run in the current project, or open and run a specified project when projectId is provided. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the selection context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.