Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code MCP Server

Code MCP Server

by block
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_project_config

Modify project configuration settings in VS Code, including allowed commands, auto-formatting, git auto-commit, and AI instructions.

Instructions

Update specific project configuration settings

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_project_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allowedCommandsNoCommands that are allowed to run
formatOnSaveNoAuto-format files after editing
gitAutoCommitNoAuto-commit AI changes
formatCommandNoFormat command (use {{file}} as placeholder)
projectInstructionsNoProject-specific instructions for AI

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', with no details about persistence, reversibility, permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks substance. It is concise but fails to provide useful information, making it somewhat wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the scope of 'project configuration', how settings persist, or how this tool relates to its siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose without elaborating on parameter usage or relationships.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('update') and the resource ('project configuration settings'). It is not a tautology, but it is generic and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_project_config' or 'load_project_config'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_allowed_command' or 'save_project_config'. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools