Inspect an H3U PLC project directory to list its machine model, POU/file types, per-file SHA256 hashes, support level, and derived tables from the unique .hcp file.
列出工程机型、POU/文件类型、每个文件的 SHA256、支持级别与派生表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | 工程目录（含唯一 .hcp） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, mention output format, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the list of data it returns. There is zero waste; every phrase adds information.
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?
For a simple listing tool with one well-described parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention the output format or any error conditions. Given the lack of annotations, a more explicit statement of read-only behavior and return structure would improve completeness.
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 single parameter 'project' has a schema description that fully explains it as a directory containing a unique .hcp file. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('列出' / list) and resource (project machine types, POU/file types, SHA256, support levels, derived tables). It is distinct enough from siblings like il_read or project_diff, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of when to prefer it over project_diff or other inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.