Retrieves and prints metadata for a Hyperframes project path, helping you inspect project details before editing or overwriting media.
Print Hyperframes project metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects. Critically, the tool exposes an 'overwrite' parameter, which sits oddly with a 'print info' framing and hints at possible media replacement — the description never acknowledges or explains this, leaving real ambiguity about whether the call is purely read-only.
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?
One short sentence with zero padding and front-loaded intent, but the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the surprising 'overwrite' capability on an info tool completely unaddressed, which is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs before invoking it.
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 50%: 'overwrite' is documented in the schema, but 'project_path' is bare, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. With a mutation-implying flag on an info tool, the description should have explained what overwrite affects here, and it does not.
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?
It states a verb+resource ('Print Hyperframes project metadata'), so the general intent is legible, but 'metadata' is undefined and nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling probes such as hyperframes_inspect, hyperframes_catalog, or hyperframes_compositions.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus hyperframes_inspect or hyperframes_catalog, and no mention of prerequisites (does the project need to exist / be initialized?). The agent must infer selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.