Set the active project for the current session so subsequent hive tools operate on the intended project. Provide a positive project_id to scope later actions.
Set which project later tools act on in this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the effect is session-scoped state that mutates the behavior of subsequent tools. It does not cover what happens on an invalid or nonexistent project_id, nor whether the selection persists across sessions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that carries the effect and the scope with zero filler. Nothing to trim.
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 tiny one-parameter session-state tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description conveys the essential behavior. Missing only edge-case behavior on invalid ids and persistence semantics.
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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives only type and bounds (positive integer). The description's 'which project' implies the parameter is a project identifier but adds no format, source, or validation meaning beyond that.
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 ('Set') and the resource it affects ('which project later tools act on'), plus the scope ('in this session'). This clearly distinguishes it from project_add, project_list, and project_prune, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'later tools act on' implies this should be called before project-scoped operations, giving indirect usage context. However, it does not state when-not to use it, what happens if a project is already selected, or point to any alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.