Retrieves open project metadata including filename, shape count, units, workspace size, and selected device, enabling review of settings before edits.
Requires capability "project". Metadata of the open project: filename, modified flag, shape count, display units, workspace size in mm and the selected device including laser source capabilities (device.laser.controller tells which controller is attached).
| 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 must carry behavioral context. It discloses the required capability and the returned fields, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens if no project is open, or any error behavior.
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 dense but purposeful sentence, front-loaded with the capability requirement and then enumerating return fields. It could be split slightly for readability, but it contains no filler.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metadata fields, including device and laser controller details. It is largely complete for a no-argument getter, though it omits edge cases such as no open project.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with the tool taking 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 names a specific verb/resource combination ("Metadata of the open project") and enumerates exactly which fields are returned. This makes it easy to distinguish from narrower getters like get_units, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives.
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?
It states a prerequisite ("Requires capability 'project'"), but it does not say when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_state_snapshot or get_units. The use case is strongly implied by the enumerated project metadata, but explicit selection guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.