Prepare a coding request in one call by bundling repository structure, existing patterns, and architecture rules, giving coding agents the context needed to implement changes consistently.
Prepare one coding request with repository structure, relevant existing patterns, and architecture rules in a single call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the content the tool gathers, but it does not disclose output format, limitations, or side effects beyond what annotations already imply.
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 one efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and resource, though the phrase 'one coding request' is slightly awkward and the sentence could have been more direct.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the returned context, or how the two parameters relate. The mention of repository structure, patterns, and architecture rules gives some sense of the gathered content, but important operational context is missing.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'request' parameters at all. The word 'request' in 'coding request' gives a weak hint, but 'query' remains completely ambiguous. With no parameter explanation in either the schema or the description, the agent cannot confidently know how to fill these fields.
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 action ('Prepare') and a resource ('one coding request'), and it clarifies what that preparation includes: repository structure, existing patterns, and architecture rules. This helps distinguish the tool from sibling tools that handle those concerns individually, though 'prepare' remains somewhat abstract.
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 phrase 'in a single call' implies this tool should be used to combine multiple context-gathering steps that siblings like aplomo_understand_repo and aplomo_find_existing_patterns perform separately. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over those alternatives or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.