status_projetoInspect a project's status to verify chapter and frame-sequence progress, pending images, unfilled [[…]] markers, active port, and last check.
Mostra o estado de um projeto: capítulos, sequências de frames registradas × esperadas (com tamanho), imagens pendentes, marcadores [[…]] sem preencher, porta e a última verificação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projeto | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the content of the report (registered vs expected sequences, unfilled markers, port, last verification), but says nothing about permissions, cost, or staleness of the data.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the concrete report contents. Nothing is wasted, though the list is packed tightly enough to read as a run-on.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating every reported field. The remaining gaps — how to identify the project and when to prefer this over sibling inspection tools — are minor for a one-parameter read tool.
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% and the single required parameter 'projeto' is undocumented — the description only refers to 'um projeto' generically. It never clarifies whether the value is a project name, slug, ID, or path, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 (mostra o estado de um projeto) and then enumerates exactly what state is surfaced: chapters, frame sequences registered vs expected, pending images, unfilled [[...]] markers, port, last verification. That enumeration separates it from siblings like verificar_site or analisar_site, though it never names an alternative 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no routing against the many sibling inspection tools (verificar_site, analisar_site, analisar_video, medir_alinhamento). Usage is only implied by the word 'status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.