Set the active project focus in your markdown vault to streamline AI assistance. Provide a project ID or name, with an optional note about your current task.
Set the active project focus.
Args: project: The project ID or name to focus on. note: Optional note about what you are working on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that focus is set and does not explain whether the previous focus is overwritten, whether the note persists, what side effects occur, or how the result is returned.
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 focused sentence plus a compact args list; there is no filler and the purpose is front-loaded before the parameter details.
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 low-complexity 2-parameter tool with an output schema, parameter coverage is adequate. However, because this is a state-changing focus tool with no annotations, the missing behavioral context (overwriting, note lifecycle, relationship to clear_focus) leaves the description only minimally complete.
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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well: it explains that project accepts an ID or name and that note is an optional contextual comment. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw type information.
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 names a specific action and resource: it sets the active project focus. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_context_focus and the unsetter clear_focus. The verb 'set' plus the 'active project focus' resource leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided beyond the verb itself. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when to prefer set_focus over clear_focus/get_context_focus, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.