Inspect a songbook's status, including directory setup, cover and logo settings, alphabetical song summaries, stray-file warnings, and PDF build freshness.
Returns comprehensive status of the songbook: directory initialization, cover settings, logo presence, song summaries in alphabetical print order, stray file warnings, and PDF build freshness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_dir | No | Songbook directory path (defaults to EVOX_PROJECT_DIR or cwd). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned status components and "Returns" implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether files are modified, what permissions are needed, or how warnings are represented.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that lists the relevant status components without filler. Each listed item contributes to understanding what the tool reports.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the status response includes. The sole optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, though the description does not add safety or alternative-use context.
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%, and the schema documents project_dir and its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Returns comprehensive status of the songbook," then enumerates the status areas. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_songs, get_song, get_cover, and generate_songbook by framing it as an aggregate diagnostic view.
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?
Usage is implied as checking songbook status, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_cover, list_songs, or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.