get_project_infoFetches current project information from Archicad, including version, project name, stories, hotlinks, and geolocation presence, to support QA readiness checks.
Project info: Archicad version, project name, stories, hotlinks, geolocation presence (Tapir enriches).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting that Tapir enriches the geolocation presence, but it does not disclose anything significant about side effects, prerequisites, or behavior not already implied by 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?
The description is short and the key output fields are listed up front. However, the parenthetical 'Tapir enriches' is cryptic and may confuse agents unfamiliar with that term, slightly reducing clarity.
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?
Given that the tool has an output schema, no required parameters, and read-only annotations, the description covers the main purpose and result contents reasonably well. The main gaps are the unexplained port parameter and lack of sibling differentiation, but these are not fatal for such a simple tool.
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 input schema has zero description coverage for the single 'port' parameter, and the description does not explain its meaning or usage. The parameter is optional and has a default of null, which reduces the risk, but the description still provides no guidance on what port refers to or how to set it.
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 identifies the resource as project info and enumerates the specific fields returned: Archicad version, project name, stories, hotlinks, and geolocation presence. It is not tautological and is sufficiently distinct from siblings like get_model_summary or query_elements, though it relies on the title for the verb.
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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. While the content implies it is for project-level metadata, there is no explicit context or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.