Silently register or update a coding project from the agent's working directory and git remote. Never creates folders.
Silently register or update a coding project from the agent's working directory and git remote. Never creates folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | Yes | Working directory | |
| branch | No | Optional current branch | |
| openPR | No | Optional open pull request to link as a card | |
| gitRemote | No | Optional git remote URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose meaningful behavior — 'Silently' (no user-facing notification), upsert semantics ('register or update'), and the negative guarantee 'Never creates folders.' It stops short of saying what happens on conflicts, what permissions are needed, or what is returned.
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, both front-loaded with the operation and the key safety constraint. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source; it covers purpose and one side-effect boundary but omits the outcome of the call, error behavior, and how 'update' merges with existing project data. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter mutation tool.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the mapping that cwd/gitRemote are auto-derived from the workspace, with no extra detail on branch or openPR semantics.
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 ('register or update') and resource ('a coding project') plus the source of the data (working directory and git remote). It implicitly differentiates from add_project by being workspace-derived rather than manually specified, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 'from the agent's working directory and git remote' implies the context in which this applies, and 'Never creates folders' is a useful exclusion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over add_project or update_project_status, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.