discover_projectsScans narrative projects under NARRATIVE_DATA_ROOT and identifies the current active project for game narrative workflows.
扫描 NARRATIVE_DATA_ROOT 下的叙事项目并解析当前活动项目
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It neither states that this is a read-only scan nor clarifies whether resolving the 'current active project' mutates any state — a crucial distinction given that set_active_project is a sibling that clearly does mutate state.
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 compact sentence with the resource and scoping root front-loaded and no wasted phrasing. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing clause about the active project is slightly ambiguous rather than wasteful.
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 and no annotations, the description should explain what a 'discovered' project looks like and, critically, whether resolving the active project changes state. Neither is covered, and the relationship to set_active_project/list_projects is unaddressed, leaving a meaningful gap for a nullary discovery 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add the contextual detail that the scan is rooted at NARRATIVE_DATA_ROOT, which explains the implicit input source in the absence of parameters.
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 specific verbs (扫描/scan, 解析/parse) and a specific resource (narrative projects under NARRATIVE_DATA_ROOT), plus the notion of resolving the active project. It is distinguishable from a generic list, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related siblings list_projects and get_project.
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 statement of when to use this tool rather than list_projects, get_project, or set_active_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer its place in the discovery workflow from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.