Remove build artifacts from an STM32 project or workspace to ensure clean rebuilds and free disk space by specifying the workspace path and optional project name and configuration.
Cleans build artifacts for a project or workspace headlessly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_name | No | ||
| configuration | No | Debug | |
| workspace_path | 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'cleans ... headlessly' and does not explain that this deletes artifacts, whether deletion is irreversible, whether workspace_path must exist, or whether it affects only the selected configuration. This is a meaningful gap for a potentially destructive operation.
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 one-sentence description is terse and front-loaded, with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter detail that is scored elsewhere.
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 tool with no annotations, three parameters, and an optional project_name, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently know how to scope the clean operation or what side effects to expect; the presence of an output schema does not fill those gaps.
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 adds no direct parameter explanation. 'project or workspace' weakly maps to workspace_path and project_name, but it does not clarify that project_name defaults to null, what null means, or how configuration selects the build variant. The description does not compensate for the bare schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Cleans') and a clear object ('build artifacts') and states the scope ('project or workspace'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like stm32_build_project and stm32_get_build_artifacts, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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 about when cleaning is appropriate (e.g., before a rebuild, when artifacts are stale) or when to prefer a sibling like stm32_build_project or stm32_remove_project. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.