Identify likely execution entry points by scoring functions such as routes, handlers, main, and exported APIs to find where a project starts or how it is invoked.
Score functions by likelihood of being execution entry points: routes, handlers, main, exported APIs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of entry points to return (default 20). |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by defining the scoring heuristic behind 'entry point', but says nothing about ordering of results or how scores are presented.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of entry-point categories is dense and useful. It is arguably too terse for a scoring tool, but nothing is wasted.
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, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; it implies scored functions but not the result shape or sort order. For a read-only heuristic tool with a fully documented schema this is adequate but leaves a real gap around output.
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% with only two parameters, both fully documented (project default, max_results default 20). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 (score) and resource (functions by likelihood of being execution entry points), and enumerates the categories it recognizes: routes, handlers, main, exported APIs. That is clear enough to know what it returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_functions or get_routes.
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 conditions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for locating starting points rather than listing all functions, and cannot tell from the text why it should pick this over get_routes or get_functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.