Run the build command in a genshin-ts project directory to compile it, then capture the output and list of dist artifacts (.gia, .json, .gs.ts).
在 projectDir 运行 npm run build / gsts，返回 stdout/stderr 与 dist 产物列表（.gia/.json/.gs.ts）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectDir | Yes | genshin-ts 工程目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the build command and return values, but does not disclose that running the build may modify the dist directory or require specific permissions. It also does not state whether the operation is destructive or reversible.
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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, 'gsts' is an unexplained abbreviation, which slightly reduces clarity. Overall it is well-structured.
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?
The description covers the essential aspects: what command runs, where, and what is returned (stdout/stderr and dist artifact list). It lacks details on error handling or output format specifics, but for a single-parameter tool with a clear purpose, this is reasonably complete.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('genshin-ts 工程目录'). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description explicitly states the action: run npm run build / gsts in projectDir and return stdout/stderr plus dist artifact list. The verb and resource are specific, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scaffold_project or lookup_node.
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 tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for different purposes, but the description does not mention conditions for choosing compile_project over others, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.