project_closeUnload a Scratch project from memory or active context without deleting any files from disk. Provide a project path, or leave it empty to close the current project.
Forget a project. Does not delete anything from disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Project to drop. Defaults to the active project. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the important non-destructive behavior ('Does not delete anything from disk'), but it does not explain what 'forget' means in terms of the workspace, active project state, or whether the action is reversible. This is a partial disclosure, not a full one.
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 two short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the critical non-destructive qualification. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, a complete schema, and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the core action and safety boundary. The main missing piece is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but that is not critical for correct invocation given the schema and tool name.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, documenting that 'path' is optional and defaults to the active project. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but because the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Forget a project') and the key boundary ('Does not delete anything from disk'), which distinguishes it from destructive operations. It does not explicitly differentiate among the many project_* siblings, but the verb 'forget' conveys a distinct non-destructive close/unload action.
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 alternatives like project_open, project_select, or project_remove_asset. The only contextual hint is the reassurance that nothing is deleted from disk, which implicitly suggests it is not for deletion but does not explain appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.