Lists tested scripts to check for reusable helpers before writing code at each substep; omit the area to view available areas, then pick one.
List tested scripts; call before code at each reusable substep. Omit area to list areas, then select one. Same-name project scripts shadow personal. No matching script: write code. If unavailable, ask once before mm_setup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | Area from first call; omit to list areas. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important behavior such as project scripts shadowing personal scripts and the no-match fallback, but it does not describe return format, permissions, or error behavior beyond the unavailable case.
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 very compact and front-loads the core action. Every clause appears to serve a purpose, including the fallback and setup instructions, with no filler.
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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main invocation workflow, shadowing behavior, and fallback cases. It is slightly incomplete about what the listing returns, but it is sufficient for correct use.
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 100%, so the single area parameter is already documented. The description adds workflow meaning by saying to omit area to list areas and then select one, but it does not add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource: "List tested scripts." It distinguishes the tool's role as a pre-coding lookup and names the mm_setup fallback, but it does not explicitly distinguish mm_list from mm_run, mm_save, or mm_setup beyond the unavailable-case instruction.
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?
It gives explicit invocation guidance: call before code at each reusable substep, omit area to list areas and then select one, write code if no script matches, and ask once before mm_setup if unavailable. This is a clear when/when-not/alternative workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.