sb3_cloud_set_varSet a cloud variable's value in a Scratch project by providing the project ID, variable name, and new value, synchronizing shared state.
Set a cloud variable value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., that this mutates cloud data), permission requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. For a write operation, this is a notable gap.
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, concise sentence with no filler. However, it is so minimal that it offers almost no structural information or context, making it barely more than a tautology of the tool name. It is concise but not informative enough to score higher.
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 the tool has three required parameters and an output schema, the description should at least clarify what the parameters mean (e.g., value format, whether it's a string or number) and any constraints. With only a bare action statement, the description is wholly inadequate for correct invocation.
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%, and the description gives zero explanation of the three parameters (project_id, name, value). The agent has to infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for a cloud variable setting tool where value formatting and name restrictions matter.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'cloud variable value', distinguishing it from plain variable setters like sb3_set_variable by explicitly mentioning 'cloud'. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related tools (e.g., sb3_cloud_get_vars for reading, sb3_set_variable for non-cloud variables). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.