Prepares adding a path to UVCS version control recursively, including matching .meta files for Unity assets, and returns a short-lived confirmation token for the confirm step.
Add a path to Plastic SCM / UVCS version control recursively. For Unity assets also add the matching .meta file. Requires prepare/confirm. Returns a short-lived confirmation token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemPath | Yes | Path relative to UVCS_WORKSPACE. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, which fits a prepare step that only mints a token. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: recursion into the path, automatic addition of matching .meta files for Unity assets, and the short-lived token return contract. It stops short of stating token lifetime or what the confirm call expects.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effects, then the prepare/confirm contract. No filler.
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 one-parameter, non-destructive prepare tool with no output schema, this covers action, scope, side effects, and the token workflow. Only minor gaps remain around token expiry and already-versioned paths.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by implying itemPath may point at a directory that is traversed recursively and may trigger sibling .meta additions.
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 concrete verb and resource ('Add a path to Plastic SCM / UVCS version control') plus the recursive scope and the Unity .meta side effect. It differentiates itself from the confirm sibling by naming the prepare/confirm pairing, though it never names uvcs_add_confirm outright.
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?
'Requires prepare/confirm' tells the agent this is the first half of a two-step flow and that the returned token feeds a later call. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if the path is already versioned or already pending add).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.