Inspects a Python project to detect its test runner, source and test files, and configuration, so coding agents can set up diff-scoped mutation testing correctly.
Inspect the project: detected test runner, Python files, test files, and config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No |
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 full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only diagnostic, but it never states whether it writes anything, requires an existing config, or fails on a non-project directory. It also omits what the agent should do with the results.
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 filler. The colon-list structure is efficient, though the tense mixing ('Inspect' vs 'detected') reads slightly awkwardly.
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?
No output schema exists, so the enumeration of reported items does useful work in signaling return contents. However, with no annotations and an undocumented 'root' parameter, the definition leaves key calling details unresolved.
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 coverage is 0% and there is a single 'root' parameter the description never mentions. It does not say what root defaults to, whether it is a path or project name, or that omitting it inspects the current directory — a meaningful gap for the only input.
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?
Names a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (the project) and enumerates what it reports: test runner, Python files, test files, config. This makes it distinguishable from the mutation-testing siblings (fang_mutation_score, fang_list_survivors), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 statement of when to call this versus fang_check_diff or fang_mutation_score, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow position of a 'doctor' tool from its name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.