Retrieve structured codebase context for AI assistants. Use section parameters to filter for specific details like stack, endpoints, or modified files.
Call FIRST. Returns project context. Use section param for specific info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Output format (default: compact) | |
| section | No | Specific section (default: all). Use "modified" for git-modified files only. | |
| force_refresh | No | Force re-analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It reveals default behavior ('compact' format) and hints at re-analysis with force_refresh. It doesn't disclose potential side effects, cost, or performance implications of force_refresh or calling FIRST. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the most important instruction. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.
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 tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for routing, but it doesn't describe the returned context structure or what 'specific info' means beyond sections. Lacks nuance about format param or force_refresh semantics. Given the tool's complexity (enum-heavy, many sections), it's adequate but leaves the agent to infer some behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., section values and default). The description adds the 'modified' value meaning and 'Call FIRST' guidance, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('Call FIRST', 'Returns project context') and resource, clearly distinguishing this as the primary project-context tool. It doesn't explicitly name siblings but the guidance is sufficient to differentiate it from file/search operations.
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?
Provides clear usage directive: 'Call FIRST' and 'Use section param for specific info.' It implies this is the entry point before other tools, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sequential guidance adds practical context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.