Registers a new Xcode project with its name and path so Claude-Project-Coordinator can track it, detect frameworks, search code, and maintain a local knowledge base.
Add a new Xcode project to track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| path | Yes | Path to project | |
| description | No | Project description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails: it doesn't say whether the path must already exist, whether duplicate project names are rejected, whether any files are touched, or what the tool returns. The only behavioral signal is 'to track', implying read-only registration rather than project creation, which is useful but thin.
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 short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Its economy is appropriate, though it is arguably so brief that it leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.
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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits outcome information an agent needs — what happens on success, duplicate handling, and whether the path is validated. A sentence on side effects and return would complete 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 description coverage is 100%, so name, path, and description are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about formats (e.g. absolute vs relative path) or the optional description field, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Add a new Xcode project') plus a scoping purpose ('to track'), which clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings like list_projects and get_project_status. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of the top score.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The 'to track' phrase hints that this registers a project rather than creating one, but the agent gets no instruction on when to call this versus update_project_status or what conditions must hold first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.