Switch to a previously selected portal and project combination to apply it to subsequent operations, requiring no re-validation.
Switch the active portal/project to one already selected via select_portal_and_project — no re-validation call. Fails if that pair hasn't been selected yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portal_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool performs no re-validation and fails hard when the pair has not been selected. It does not detail side effects on the previous active context or auth requirements, but for a simple switch operation the disclosed behavior is meaningful and useful.
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 packs purpose, prerequisite, and failure mode with no wasted words. The dash-delimited clarification about no re-validation call earns its place by differentiating the tool from its sibling.
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 two-parameter state-switching tool with an output schema, the description covers the core actions, prerequisite, and failure behavior. It does not explain what happens to the previous active context or how to verify current selections, but those details are minor and partially discoverable via sibling tools like list_selected_portals.
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%, but the property titles 'Portal Id' and 'Project Id' are self-explanatory. The description adds important semantic constraint: the two IDs must represent an already-selected pair, and the failure condition ties both parameters to the prerequisite selection step.
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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('active portal/project'), and immediately distinguishes the tool from select_portal_and_project by noting it operates on an already-selected pair with no re-validation. This makes the tool's role unambiguous even without opening 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 description clearly states the prerequisite (must already be selected via select_portal_and_project) and the failure condition if that prerequisite is unmet. It does not explicitly say 'call select_portal_and_project first if not selected,' but the context is strong enough to guide correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.