Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kratos-MCP

Kratos-MCP

by FoggyStorm
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

project_switch

Switch to a specified project directory on the Kratos-MCP server to enable project isolation and context-aware coding assistance, maintaining traceable memory of code snippets and runtime traces.

Instructions

Switch to a different project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "project_switch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathYesPath to project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining effects on subsequent operations, required permissions, or side effects. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context such as the effect on subsequent tool calls. Output schema is absent, but not critical here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'project_path' described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Switch to a different project' uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like project_current, which retrieves current project, and other tools. However, it lacks additional detail on scope or context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as change_storage_path or project_current. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools