Clarifyprompt-MCP

inspect_context

Preview the context bundle (workspace rules, frameworks, target-model capabilities) that optimize_prompt would assemble, without running optimization.

Instructions

Preview the ContextBundle (workspace rules, frameworks, target-model capabilities, resolved analysis, session history) without running optimization. Returns the same bundle that optimize_prompt would assemble.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes
`category`	No
`cwd`	No
`file_path`	No
`file_language`	No
`file_excerpt`	No
`session_id`	No
`skip_intent_resolution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.8Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Given that no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('without running optimization') and what it returns, which is sufficient for a preview operation.

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?

The description is two sentences long with no superfluous information. It front-loads the core action and provides clear, efficient context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on parameter usage, output format, and behavioral edge cases, making it insufficient for complex calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain any of the 8 parameters despite 0% schema description coverage. It adds no value over the schema, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Preview' and identifies the resource 'ContextBundle' with details on its contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'optimize_prompt' by noting that it runs without optimization.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states it returns the same bundle as optimize_prompt would assemble, implying it is for previewing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.