Diagnose .mpp file opening failures by checking the server version, active config file, and Java/MPXJ support. Run this first to identify missing components.
Show the server version, which config file is in use, and whether .mpp support is available (Java + MPXJ jars, where they were found). Run this first if a .mpp file fails to open. .xer and XML files never need Java.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds diagnostic details (where Java and MPXJ jars were found) and clarifies that .xer/XML files don't require Java, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core output information is front-loaded, followed by a targeted usage hint and a clarifying note. It is both concise and well-structured.
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 parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (version, config file, .mpp support details) and when to use it. It even mentions the .xer/XML exception, making it complete for the agent's decision-making.
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 trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. The baseline of 4 for 0 params is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific info but none is needed.
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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource: server version, config file, and .mpp support availability. It also provides a usage trigger ('Run this first if a .mpp file fails to open'), distinguishing it from sibling schedule-analysis tools by focusing on setup diagnostics.
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?
It explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Run this first if a .mpp file fails to open') and provides a negative condition ('.xer and XML files never need Java'), effectively telling the agent when it may not be needed. This is clear, actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.