Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OppenSteward-MCP

OppenSteward-MCP

by HaobinZhou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

refresh_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reload the project list and recheck its exact roots without scanning or registering other projects.

Instructions

Reload the project list and recheck its exact roots. Never scan or register other projects.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "refresh_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope boundary ('never scan or register other projects') that goes beyond the annotations, but it does not clarify side effects such as whether cached state is rewritten.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters the description only needs to convey behavior and scope, which it largely does. The missing piece is explicit routing against the sibling list_projects.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; there is nothing parameter-related for the description to disambiguate.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Reload') with a specific resource ('the project list') and adds the secondary action of rechecking roots, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling list_projects, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied ('Reload... recheck') and there is a negative constraint ('Never scan or register other projects'), which scopes the tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement nor any mention of how this differs from list_projects or other list-oriented siblings.

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