Detect conventional project actions like tests, lint, build, and run from build files without executing them, so you can identify available commands safely.
Detect conventional project actions from build files (tests, lint, build, run) without executing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by naming the data source (build files) and asserting nothing is executed, which matters given the adjacent runner tool. No permission, cost, or caching details are added.
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 tight sentence with the action, source and constraint front-loaded. Zero filler and no restatement of the tool name.
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 single-optional-param, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It could hint at the shape of the detected actions (names/labels), but with no output schema that is not required.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'project' including the default-to-active behavior. The description adds nothing beyond it; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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?
Specific verb ('Detect') plus resource ('conventional project actions from build files'), with the enumerations (tests, lint, build, run) and the key qualifier 'without executing' that distinguishes it from the run_project_action sibling. An agent can tell it apart from the sibling without opening the schema.
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?
'Without executing' implies this is a dry discovery step that precedes execution, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated. It never names run_project_action or explicitly says 'use this first, then call the runner.' Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.