Writes an .st source file into a project, registers and compiles it, and returns build diagnostics with code, file, line, and column so you can identify and fix errors.
Write an .st source into a project, register it and compile. Returns build diagnostics (code, file, line, column).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| solution | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that compilation occurs and diagnostics are returned, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are required, whether registration has side effects, or what happens on failure.
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 are front-loaded and free of waste. The core action and the return type are stated efficiently.
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?
The tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description mentions diagnostics with field names but does not explain parameter roles, write semantics, or the build side effects, leaving important gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.
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%, so the description should compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It only loosely implies that code and project are involved, leaving name and solution unexplained and adding little beyond the parameter names.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: writing an .st source into a project, registering it, and compiling it. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as stone_build or stone_pou_generate.
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?
Usage is implied by the write-register-compile workflow, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus stone_build or other source-generation tools. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.