Validate user choices and build the init-app command line, returning it for review before execution.
Final step: validate confirmed user selections and return an init-app command without running it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drf | No | ||
| venv | No | ||
| server | No | ||
| database | No | sqlite | |
| strategy | No | standard | |
| framework | No | fastapi | |
| output_dir | No | ||
| project_name | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key trait: the command is returned but not executed, which implies no system mutation. However, it does not explain what 'validate' entails, whether invalid selections produce errors, or any side effects beyond command construction.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. Key details are front-loaded: 'Final step', 'validate', 'return', and 'without running it' all appear early and each phrase 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 tool with 8 parameters万余 and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level role. It omits parameter semantics, usage context relative to siblings, and validation behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the remaining gaps are significant.
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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'confirmed user selections'. With 8 parameters and only the schema titles/defaults available, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 action ('validate', 'return') and a clear resource ('init-app command'), and clarifies that it does not run the command. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as the 'final step' in the workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'Final step' and 'confirmed user selections' imply this tool should be used after other steps such as recommendation or metadata gathering. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of sibling tools like recommend_init_app_flags.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.