renforge_contextDiscover the active Ren'Py project by checking the dashboard, serve default, or cwd. Use it to identify which game is running before inspecting state or reading variables.
Discover the active Ren'Py project (dashboard, serve default, or cwd).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what happens if no active project exists, or how the three sources are prioritized. Only has an output schema, which helps, but behavioral traits like resolution precedence remain undisclosed.
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?
A single, short sentence — appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb 'Discover'. The parenthetical is slightly cryptic but doesn't bloat the description.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, has an output schema), so less description is needed. But the ambiguity about what 'dashboard, serve default, or cwd' means and the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling project tools leaves gaps for an agent trying to decide between this and renforge_inspect_project/renforge_scan_project.
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, so per calibration the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain inputs and correctly adds no parameter detail.
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 verb and resource (discover the active Ren'Py project), which is reasonably clear. However, the parenthetical 'dashboard, serve default, or cwd' is ambiguous — it's unclear whether these are discovery sources/methods or outputs. Compared to siblings like renforge_inspect_project or renforge_scan_project, the specific purpose of this tool (resolving which project context is active) isn't fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling project-inspection tools (renforge_inspect_project, renforge_scan_project). No mention of prerequisites or when-not conditions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'active project', leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.