med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

open_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Register an existing project folder by path so a moved or copied medical literature review project can be reopened for work.

Instructions

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "open_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Folder of an existing project

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the move/copy scenario, but given a surprising destructiveHint=true on what reads as a benign 'register' action, it should explain what gets overwritten or destroyed — that gap keeps it at 3.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action is stated first and the example follows economically.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The only shortfall is that the destructive annotation is left unelaborated, which is a minor completeness gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which the schema already documents as 'Folder of an existing project'. The description's phrasing mirrors that without adding format, constraints, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ('register') and resource ('existing project folder'), which implicitly separates it from create_project (new projects). It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from, so differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It supplies a concrete triggering scenario ('after it was moved or copied from elsewhere'), which is real context for when to reach for this tool. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives like create_project or list_projects, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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