Show content statistics for a project, including file counts, task breakdown, and growth monitoring.
Show content statistics for a project — file counts, task breakdown, growth monitoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project slug (auto-detected if omitted) | |
| workspace_path | No | Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / properties / workspace_pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the categories of content statistics returned (file counts, task breakdown, growth monitoring), but it does not describe return format, project-scoping behavior, or any server-side constraints beyond what the annotations and schema provide.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and immediately states the tool's function and its main outputs. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but the structure is efficient.
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 read-only tool with full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description gives an adequate high-level view of what is returned. It does not clarify how this view differs from related reporting siblings, but the core information needed to call the tool is not missing.
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 (project and workspace_path) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions that statistics are "for a project," which loosely connects to the project parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 clear verb ("Show") and resource ("content statistics for a project") and enumerates what those statistics include: file counts, task breakdown, growth monitoring. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from related siblings such as status, telemetry, or project_context, leaving the agent to infer when this specific view is appropriate.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling alternatives exist. The only usage context comes from the input schema (e.g., project auto-detection and workspace_path omission rules), not from the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.