Synchronizes CSS and JS build assets into app-config.json and app.json to prevent 'No asset defined' errors.
Synchronize CSS and JS build assets into app-config.json and app.json to prevent "No asset defined" errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectDir | Yes | Absolute path to the project directory. | |
| outputDirName | No | Build output folder (default: "www"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write/mutation by synchronizing assets into config files, but it does not disclose whether existing entries are overwritten or merged, required permissions, or what happens if the target files are missing. Some behavioral context is present (which files are modified), but significant gaps remain for a mutation tool.
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 that states the action, the assets, the target files, and the benefit. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or vague filler.
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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains what is changed and why. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits timing relative to sibling build/validate tools and behavioral details like overwrite semantics, leaving an agent with some uncertainty about invocation context.
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 100%, so both parameters (projectDir and outputDirName) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 for high coverage.
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 (Synchronize) and resources (CSS and JS build assets, app-config.json, app.json) and the outcome (prevent "No asset defined" errors). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like zmp_build or zmp_validate_project, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only implied usage is the error it prevents, but it does not say when to call it relative to build, validate, or deploy, matching the calibration's 'no guidance' score of 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.