fcop-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Init Project

init_project

Initialize an FCoP project with a preset team, deploying folder topology, config, protocol rules, and team docs for agent coordination.

Instructions

Initialize an FCoP project with a bundled preset team.

Since 3.0.2 a fresh init produces the v3 topology (per spec §1.1): fcop/_lifecycle/{inbox,active,review,done,archive}/ plus the retained v2 buckets reports/ / issues/ / shared/. The superseded v2 buckets tasks/ and log/ are no longer created on fresh init (use python -m fcop migrate --to-v3 to upgrade an existing v2 project).

Writes fcop/fcop.json, deposits LETTER-TO-ADMIN.md under fcop/, creates the workspace/ cage with a starter README (per Rule 7.5), deploys the team's three-layer docs to fcop/shared/ (TEAM-README / TEAM-ROLES / TEAM-OPERATING-RULES + roles/{ROLE}.md, both zh and en), and (per ADR-0006) deploys the bundled protocol rules to four locations so any agent host sees them: .cursor/rules/fcop-rules.mdc, .cursor/rules/fcop-protocol.mdc, AGENTS.md, and CLAUDE.md. Existing copies are archived to .fcop/migrations/<timestamp>/ before being overwritten.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Output language. ``zh`` or ``en``. Default: ``zh``.	zh
`team`	No	Team template ID. One of ``dev-team`` / ``media-team`` / ``mvp-team`` / ``qa-team``. Default: ``dev-team``. (Solo mode is a separate entry point — call ``init_solo`` instead so the config carries ``mode="solo"``.)	dev-team
`force`	No	When ``True``, overwrite an already-initialized project. The previous ``fcop.json``, letter, workspace README, and ``shared/`` documents are archived under ``.fcop/migrations/<timestamp>/`` before the new content lands — nothing is lost silently. Use this when ADMIN wants to switch teams (e.g. solo → dev-team) without manually wiping the project. Default: ``False``.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.4May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it enumerates every artifact written, the exact rule-file locations, the retained and removed v2 buckets, and the archival behavior under .fcop/migrations/<timestamp>/. It even explicitly notes that existing copies are archived so nothing is lost silently.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and dense, but nearly every sentence carries concrete behavioral consequences; the core purpose is front-loaded. It could be tightened with bulleted structure and trimmed of internal references like §1.1, Rule 7.5, and ADR-0006, but overall it earns its length for a complex initialization tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Side effects and outputs are comprehensively covered, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The main gap is the missing prerequisite that a project directory should be configured first (e.g., via set_project_dir), which would help an agent avoid calling this tool prematurely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some force behavior already present in the schema but does not add meaningful new meaning about lang, team, or force beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Initialize an FCoP project') and narrows scope to 'bundled preset team', which distinguishes it from siblings like init_solo and create_custom_team. The additional v2/v3 topology details further clarify exactly what kind of initialization this tool performs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The tool definition gives explicit routing guidance: solo mode should call init_solo instead, existing v2 projects should use migrate --to-v3, and force is appropriate when switching teams. This is explicit when/when-not guidance rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.