Move a project to its next design phase: strict mode blocks advancement and lists missing requirements; free mode advances and reports skipped items, then closes after verification.
Move to the next phase. In 'strict' mode, it lists what is missing and does not advance. In 'free' mode, it advances and reports what was skipped. After 'verification' it closes the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose mode-specific behavior: strict blocks advancement and reports missing items, free advances and reports skipped items, and verification closes the project. It omits important behavioral details such as whether closure is destructive or reversible, required permissions, error conditions, and how the mode is configured.
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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the mode-specific outcomes. Every sentence adds relevant information without repetition.
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?
It covers the core transition logic and the special verification/closing behavior, which is useful for a state-changing tool with no annotations or output schema. However, it leaves out phase ordering, how strict/free mode is selected, destructive side effects of closure, and error cases, making it only partially complete for the complexity involved.
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 0% for the sole required parameter, projectId, and the description never mentions projectId, its role, or expected format. The description introduces mode concepts but those are not parameters, so it adds no meaning about the actual input.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Move to the next phase') and explains the outcomes of advancing. It does not explicitly define what a phase is or differentiate against the sibling set_project_mode, but the core operation is clear.
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?
The strict/free mode behavior implies when the tool will advance versus list missing items, and the verification edge case is noted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use advance_phase versus set_project_mode or update_project, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.