repository_manager_build_projectsBuilds projects one at a time so compilation cannot exhaust workstation resources, preventing build failures caused by concurrent compilation.
Build projects serially so compilation cannot exhaust the workstation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threads | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully adds the serial-execution behavior an agent could not derive from structured fields. It omits failure handling and what happens if a build fails midway, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste that leads with the action and follows with the reason. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a build operation.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns, but for a build tool it says nothing about failure behavior, progress, or scope of 'projects'. With annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 single 'threads' parameter is never explained in the description. There is even mild tension: the description says builds run 'serially' while the only parameter is 'threads', which the description does nothing to reconcile.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Build projects') and adds the distinguishing serial-execution trait. However, it does not clearly differentiate itself from close siblings like rm_projects_build or repository_manager_test_projects, so an agent must still infer which build variant to pick.
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 'so compilation cannot exhaust the workstation' implies the situation that selects this tool (resource-constrained serial builds), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative versus rm_projects_build. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.