Open a .kit.zip to continue a cycling kit project, returning an editable kit object for other tools, adding its pictures as assets, and showing it on riders.
Open a .kit.zip (made here or elsewhere) to keep working on it: returns its kit object (to edit and pass to the other tools) and adds its pictures as assets; also shows it on the riders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| base64_zip | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says it 'adds its pictures as assets' and 'shows it on the riders'—clear state mutations. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation.
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 sentence that front-loads the main action, but crams multiple outcomes and a parenthetical without clear structure. It is adequate but could be more scannable.
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 an import tool with no output schema, the description mentions the return (kit object) and side effects, but omits parameter usage, error handling, and return-type details. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.
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% for two optional parameters (path, base64_zip). The description does not mention either parameter, leaving an agent with no guidance on how to supply the zip content or path.
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+resource: 'Open a .kit.zip' and describes its outcomes (returns kit object, adds pictures as assets, shows on riders). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like preview_kit, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
Provides implied usage: 'to keep working on it' and 'to edit and pass to the other tools'. However, it does not specify when to use this over preview_kit or get_template, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.