Render a human-readable markdown status summary of a project's delivery workflow. View current stage and progress directly from the project directory.
Render a human-readable markdown summary of the workflow status.
Args: project_dir: Project directory. Defaults to working directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what is rendered (a markdown summary) but not whether it returns a string, writes a file, requires an initialized workflow, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that could plausibly mutate or generate artifacts.
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 short, front-loaded, and directly informative. One sentence conveys the purpose, and one argument line documents the sole parameter with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the core purpose and parameter are covered. However, the absence of usage context and behavioral expectations—especially how it relates to workflow_status and whether it is read-only—leaves meaningful gaps that annotations could have filled.
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%, so the description must compensate. It documents the only parameter: 'project_dir: Project directory. Defaults to working directory.' This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's type/default and fully covers the single parameter.
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 ('Render') and a distinct output ('human-readable markdown summary of the workflow status'). This is clear and distinguishes it from a raw status tool like workflow_status, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools such as workflow_status or workflow_check, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.