Generate a deterministic SHA-256 manifest of repository files using include/exclude rules, without uploading or publishing any content.
Build a deterministic repository-independent SHA-256 manifest from explicit include/exclude rules. Never uploads or publishes files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exclude | No | ||
| include | Yes | ||
| rootDir | Yes | ||
| destinations | 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 disclosure burden. It does that meaningfully by stating deterministic output, SHA-256 hashing, and the critical fact that nothing is uploaded or published. It omits some edge-case behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clear and safety-relevant.
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 with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the side-effect disclaimer is cleanly separated. Every word earns its place.
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 including a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, destinations, rootDir behavior, or how include/exclude rules are interpreted. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.
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 must compensate for the schema's silence. It mentions include/exclude rules but gives no semantics for rootDir, no pattern syntax for include/exclude entries, and no explanation of the destinations object. Four parameters remain effectively undocumented from the agent's perspective.
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 names a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('deterministic repository-independent SHA-256 manifest'), and its side-effect disclaimer ('Never uploads or publishes files') clearly differentiates it from siblings like upload_file and publish_draft. The agent can tell what this tool is for without inspecting 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?
The 'Never uploads or publishes files' clause gives useful routing context and implies this is a local, side-effect-free preparation step. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over build_publication_package or other alternatives, nor does it describe preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.