Verifies a port project contains inspectable generated source, translated variables, and provenance before ISO packaging to catch missing artifacts early.
Verify that a port project contains inspectable generated source, translated variables and provenance before packaging an ISO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceDir | No | ||
| projectRoot | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the tool merely reads and reports, or also writes/creates a manifest (the name and 'manifest' framing suggest possible output artifacts), what happens on failure, or whether it mutates project state.
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; the purpose and the timing cue arrive immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are underspecified.
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 output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the definition should explain what a successful vs. failed verification looks like. Instead it leaves the agent guessing about return values, pass/fail semantics, and the two path parameters.
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% for both parameters. The description only loosely hints that 'project' maps to projectRoot and 'generated source' maps to sourceDir, with no explanation of the optional sourceDir's default behavior, path resolution, or why one would override 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?
States a clear verb ('Verify') and enumerates the specific resource contents checked: generated source, translated variables, and provenance. It is distinguishable from siblings like port_validate_translation or package_ps2_iso, though the term 'inspectable' is jargon that leaves the exact criteria slightly fuzzy.
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 'before packaging an ISO' implies a precondition/gate usage relative to package_ps2_iso, which is real guidance. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or how it differs from adjacent checks such as port_validate_translation or port_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.