Sets the active LASAL project by directory path. Call this first before using other tools that operate on the project.
Set the active LASAL project by directory path. Call first — all other tools default to this project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full path to the LASAL solution folder (must contain a .lsm file). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary side effect: setting the active project and affecting all other tools. It does not mention persistence, validation errors, or reversibility, but for a simple setter the description is transparent about its impact on global state.
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 waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is appended concisely. Every word earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what it does, when to call it, and the schema covers the parameter requirements. It could optionally mention what happens on invalid input, but that is minor given the low complexity.
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 'path' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the requirement that the folder must contain a .lsm file. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Set') and resource ('active LASAL project') with a clear scope ('by directory path'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Call first — all other tools default to this project', so an agent can tell it apart from the other project-related tools.
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 explicitly says 'Call first — all other tools default to this project', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that this tool should be invoked before any other tool that depends on project context, leaving no ambiguity about ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.