Check which repository the server is bound to and how, without starting the language server. Use it first to confirm the server points to the expected project.
Which repository this server bound to, and how. Answers cheaply without starting the language server — use it first to confirm the server is pointed at the project you think it is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool 'answers cheaply without starting the language server,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not fully describe the return shape or error modes, but for a zero-parameter informational query this is reasonably adequate.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the cheapness and usage guidance. Every clause earns its place with no redundant information.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete: it explains what the tool reports, how to use it first, and why it is useful. The agent has everything needed to decide when and why to call it.
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?
The tool has exactly zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description has no need to explain parameter behavior.
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 clearly identifies the tool's resource ('which repository this server bound to') and its informational purpose, including 'how' the binding is established. It also distinguishes this tool from the symbol-oriented siblings by focusing on server configuration state rather than code navigation.
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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'use it first to confirm the server is pointed at the project you think it is.' It clearly explains when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no obvious alternative among the sibling tools directly competes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.