Reads the .flaxproj file to retrieve project name, version, targets, references, and default scene settings.
Reads the .flaxproj file: name, version, targets, references, and default scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| gameTarget | Yes | ||
| references | Yes | ||
| defaultScene | Yes | ||
| editorTarget | Yes | ||
| minEngineVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully identifies the underlying source (the .flaxproj file), which hints at staleness semantics, but it does not say what happens if the file is absent or malformed, nor whether values are cached.
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. The verb and resource come first and the field list follows, which is the right order for scanning.
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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and zero parameters means no input gaps. The description covers the source and scope of the data; only the relationship to overlapping siblings (project_targets, project_settings) is left 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and instead spends its words on the returned data.
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 ("Reads the .flaxproj file") and enumerates the fields returned (name, version, targets, references, default scene), so the agent knows exactly what data it yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like project_targets and project_settings, and listing "targets" as a field actually blurs that boundary.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for project metadata, but the description never says when to prefer it over project_targets, project_settings, or server_info. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.