Read project counts, configuration, and active-job state for a project root without modifying the project, so you can check Blender production status safely.
Read project counts, configuration, and active-job state without modifying it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_root | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does at least self-declare read-only behavior ('without modifying it'), which is the key safety trait here. However, it discloses nothing about permissions, scope limits, failure modes, or how stale/fresh the counts and job state are.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no padding; scope and the read-only constraint are both stated immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the operation is a simple single-parameter read. The remaining gap is the undocumented project_root argument, which leaves the definition slightly short of complete.
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 single parameter project_root has 0% schema description coverage and no description text either, so the agent gets no guidance on format (absolute path, repo root, workspace id). With one param and no schema help, the description should compensate but does not.
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 (read) and resource (project counts, configuration, active-job state) with the non-mutating qualifier. It is broadly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_asset and get_job_status, though the overlap with job-state reporting is not explicitly disambiguated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as inspect_asset or get_job_status despite the sibling overlap on job state. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.