Read current project sources, part, top module, and build-run states to verify synthesis and implementation readiness.
Read current project, sources, part, top module, and build-run states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| error_code | Yes | ||
| state_changed | Yes | ||
| recommended_actions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and the listed items outline what is inspected. It doesn't disclose potential side effects (though none are likely) or performance characteristics, but it adequately communicates the read-only nature.
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, efficient sentence with the key action 'Read' front-loaded. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary detail.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the scope and purpose. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open), but such details are likely implicit in the tool's operation and not critical for selection.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist.
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?
The description clearly states a read operation on the project state, listing the specific items (project, sources, part, top module, build-run states). It distinguishes from inspect_run by focusing on project-level state rather than a specific run, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.
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 description implies when to use it (when you need to inspect overall project state) but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like inspect_run or diagnose_run. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.