project_mcp_statusReports the project mcp.json discovered for the current session, which MCP servers connected, and how many tools each exposes without returning credentials.
Show which project mcp.json Local Project MCP discovered, which servers connected, and how many tools they expose. Does not return credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations handle safety (read-only, non-destructive), the description provides specific behavioral limits by stating what it does *not* reveal ('Does not return credentials'), which is key operational context for the agent.
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 a single, highly efficient sentence. It front-loads the core functionality and includes the critical safety exclusion, maximizing information density with minimal word count.
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 there are no input parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent exactly what data points will be surfaced (projects, servers, tool counts).
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?
Since the tool has 0 parameters, the baseline score for parameter semantics (baseline 4) applies. The description does not attempt to describe non-existent parameters, and the schema is empty.
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 explicitly states the purpose: to show discovered projects, connected servers, and exposed tools. It is specific and unambiguous, regardless of sibling tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'readOnlyHint' and the description of what it exposes. While it doesn't explicitly state 'when to use,' the warning 'Does not return credentials' serves as an important safety constraint for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.