Register a local path as a Continuum project so AI agents can store and retrieve project decisions and context from an offline SQLite-backed memory store.
Register a local path as a Continuum project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on a duplicate registration, whether the name is auto-derived, or what errors can occur for an invalid path.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is appropriately terse, though it borders on under-specification rather than being a structural flaw.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with two fully undocumented optional parameters and no annotation coverage of duplicate/invalid-path behavior, the description leaves core call semantics unaddressed.
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 both parameters, and the description says nothing about 'name' or 'path' — not their format, not defaults, not whether both are optional and what happens if omitted. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('register') and resource ('a local path as a Continuum project'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like project_list/project_get/project_context, but the singular act of registering vs. listing/getting is inferable.
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 on when to use this versus project_get or project_list, no prerequisites (e.g., does the path need to be a git repo or contain certain files?), and no mention of what happens if the path is already registered. The agent must infer all usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.