Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Windows Developer MCP Server

Windows Developer MCP Server

by peeyushcodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

project_summary

Return a comprehensive project overview by combining project type detection, LOC counting, and TODO/FIXME listing into a single structured report.

Instructions

Return a comprehensive project overview combining multiple analyses.

Combines project type detection, LOC counting, and TODO/FIXME listing into a single structured report.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "project_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject root directory. Defaults to cwd..

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the tool aggregates read-only analyses and returns a structured report, implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention performance implications for large projects, error handling, or the exact contents of the report beyond the three analyses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Second sentence elaborates on the components. Zero wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient scope but could be more precise about what 'project type detection' means and how this relates to analyze_project sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters; path has a clear description. Tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'Return', resource 'comprehensive project overview', and explicitly lists components (project type detection, LOC counting, TODO/FIXME listing). This distinguishes it from sibling count_lines_of_code and find_todos, but does not clearly distinguish from analyze_project.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies when to use (when a combined overview is needed) by listing what it combines, but provides no explicit when-not or alternatives. It doesn't mention that running count_lines_of_code and find_todos separately could serve other needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools