renforge_distributeBuild desktop distributions for Ren'Py projects by specifying the project path, target platform (PC, Mac, Linux), and output destination.
Build desktop distributions (e.g. package='pc', 'mac', 'linux').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | No | ||
| destination | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| 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 behavioral burden. It indicates a build/mutation operation and lists package targets, but omits whether builds overwrite existing output, how destination is used, required permissions, and other side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action is stated immediately. It is structurally clean, though its brevity is the source of the completeness gaps rather than a flaw in conciseness itself.
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?
With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a required project_path, the description is too thin for correct invocation. The output schema covers return values, but essential context about required inputs, destination behavior, and execution side effects is absent.
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%, so the description must compensate but only explains 'package' via examples such as 'pc', 'mac', and 'linux'. The required 'project_path' and the 'destination' parameter remain undocumented, leaving key parameter semantics missing.
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?
States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('desktop distributions'), with examples for package values. The 'desktop' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling renforge_web_build, though no alternative is named. Clear enough for selection.
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/when-not guidance is given, and no build-related sibling is named as an alternative. The package examples suggest valid targets but do not explain when this tool should be chosen over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.