info_proyectoRetrieve document names, types, and scene counts from a Story Architect project. Specify the project to get its structure.
Nombres de documentos, tipos y número de escenas de un proyecto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proyecto | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only information lookup by listing the returned metadata, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, error behavior, or required validation.
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 short and immediately conveys the core payload. It is concise without padding, though the brevity reduces completeness in other dimensions.
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?
Given the existence of many sibling tools, one required parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. The output schema helps with return values, but the description still leaves project identity, parameter semantics, and tool selection underspecified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'de un proyecto' without defining the format or meaning of the 'proyecto' parameter. The agent remains unsure whether to pass a name, ID, or some other identifier.
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 phrase 'Nombres de documentos, tipos y número de escenas de un proyecto' clearly describes the resource (a project) and the content returned (document names, types, and scene count). However, it has no explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings like listar_proyectos or estadisticas.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as listar_proyectos, leer_guion, or estadisticas. It also fails to explain prerequisites like whether 'proyecto' should be an ID or a name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.