Scans a project directory to identify frontend workspace, framework, routes, dev command, Playwright auth states, and testid conventions, providing setup details needed before exploratory UI testing.
Scan a project directory to discover the frontend workspace, framework, routes, dev command, Playwright auth storage states, and testid conventions. Run this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Absolute path to the project root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.31.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the outputs discovered, which implies a read-only inspection, but never states that it makes no writes, whether results are cached/persisted for later tools, roughly how long it takes, or what happens on a non-frontend project. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a first-step tool.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The action and discovered artifacts come first and the ordering constraint ('Run this first') is front-loaded at the end where it is most actionable.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the categories of information returned, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Minor gap: no note on how the results are consumed by downstream tools like scout_playbook or scout_run_plan.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter projectPath is fully documented in the schema as an absolute path. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (scan) and resource (project directory) plus an explicit inventory of what the scan discovers: frontend workspace, framework, routes, dev command, Playwright auth storage states, testid conventions. No sibling tool does discovery scanning, so it is easily distinguished in a 46-tool namespace.
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?
'Run this first' gives a clear ordering directive relative to all the other scout_* tools, which is strong guidance for a discovery tool. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to use scout_recheck_plan instead of a fresh scan).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.