project_mcp_statusReports the discovered project manifest, active server names, connection states, and tool counts so you can verify a project's MCP setup without exposing credentials.
Report the discovered project manifest, server names, connection state and tool counts. Does not return credentials.
| 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?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful disclosure about what is returned and explicitly notes that credentials are excluded, which is valuable security context beyond 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?
Two tight sentences with the primary reporting behavior front-loaded and the credential exclusion second. No wasted words.
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 description covers the main return categories, which matters because there is no output schema, and the annotations cover safety. It could say more about freshness or whether discovery is live versus cached, but it is complete enough for a zero-parameter status 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior the description needs to explain.
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 (Report) and enumerates the exact resources returned: project manifest, server names, connection state and tool counts. Clear for an agent, though there are no siblings to distinguish from.
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?
Implies a diagnostic/status-inspection use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions. With no sibling tools this is less costly, but the guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.