new_homeInitialize a blank project to start designing a floor plan, then add walls, rooms, and furniture for 3D visualization.
Start a new empty project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| v | No | Plan version written to, when there are several | |
| ok | Yes | Always true | |
| ids | No | Ids created or touched | |
| rev | No | Plan revision | |
| text | Yes | The reply as written |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on what side effects occur (e.g., discarding current project state). It adds no context beyond the annotation, but it does not contradict it. The description is adequate but minimal.
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?
One short, direct sentence. Perfectly concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it could mention the destructive nature (that it replaces the current project) to be fully complete, but the annotation covers that. Given the simplicity, it's fairly complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids redundancy.
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 uses a specific verb 'Start' and a clear resource 'new empty project', which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like open_home or get_home. It clearly states the tool creates a new, blank 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for creating a new project as opposed to opening an existing one, nor does it discuss any prerequisites or context. Given the large sibling list, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.