Create a redacted project snapshot for audit or GitOps readiness. Choose specific sections and workflows to include only the relevant configuration data.
Create a redacted project snapshot for audit/GitOps preparation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sections | No | ||
| project_key | No | ||
| max_workflows | No | ||
| workflow_names | No | ||
| include_workflow_raw_list | No |
| 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 disclose behavioral traits, but only 'redacted' is mentioned. It does not say what is redacted, whether project state is changed, whether a snapshot is persisted, or what permissions are required, leaving important side effects undisclosed.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the verb and purpose, containing no filler. It could still be expanded with useful details without losing its tight structure, but as written it is efficient.
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?
Five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a create-like operation require more than one line of context. The description does not clarify how sections, workflow_names, or max_workflows interact, or what 'redacted' removes, so the agent lacks enough information to invoke it confidently.
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% and the description adds no meaning for any of the five parameters: sections, project_key, max_workflows, workflow_names, or include_workflow_raw_list. The parameter names and defaults in the schema provide only weak hints, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 action ('create') and resource ('redacted project snapshot') with a clear purpose ('for audit/GitOps preparation'). It is distinguishable from siblings like project_get and project_plan by the snapshot concept, but does not explicitly contrast 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?
The phrase 'for audit/GitOps preparation' gives implied context for when the snapshot is useful. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many project/workflow siblings, so the agent must infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.