Create a new FastMCP server project with preconfigured tests and settings by specifying a project name and optional target directory.
Scaffold a new FastMCP server project with tests and configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_dir | No | Parameter target_dir | |
| project_name | Yes | Parameter project_name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never discloses that this is a write operation creating files on disk, whether an existing directory is overwritten or errors out, whether network access is needed to fetch templates, or what the tool returns on success.
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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.
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 file-creating mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and placeholder parameter docs, the description omits the essentials: output location defaults, overwrite/failure behavior, and generated project structure. An agent has to guess before calling it.
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 coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions are bare placeholders ('Parameter target_dir'), meaning the description adds nothing about what target_dir defaults to or how project_name is used in generated files.
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?
Specific verb ('Scaffold') plus a concrete resource ('a new FastMCP server project') and the artifacts produced (tests, configuration). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling validate_project, but never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from it.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus validate_project, no prerequisites stated (e.g. whether target_dir must exist or be empty), and no guidance on what to do after scaffolding. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.