Loads complete project art context—config, style rules, canonical assets, anti-patterns, and recent decisions—into a single payload for AI agents to follow consistent pixel-art style.
Get session bootstrap context — assembles project config, style, canonical assets, anti-patterns, and recent decisions into one payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly frames the operation as read-only, while 'assembles ... into one payload' conveys an aggregation behavior, not a mutation. It does not mention response details or caching, but for a zero-parameter read the description is still reasonably transparent.
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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It opens with the operation, names the resource, and specifies all payload contents.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context: it identifies exactly when to use the tool and what the payload contains. A slightly richer statement about what the returned payload looks like or how it differs from calling sibling getters would make it fully 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has full 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain inputs. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly treats the operation as needing no arguments.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get session bootstrap context' and lists exactly what is bundled (project config, style, canonical assets, anti-patterns, recent decisions). It clearly differentiates itself from the many more targeted getters like art.get_project_context, art.get_style, and art.memory.get_decision.
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 implies a clear usage context: call this once during session bootstrap to receive a combined context payload. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the aggregation framing provides enough guidance for an agent to recognize this is the all-in-one retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.