register_build_dirAdd an existing CMake build directory outside workspace roots, containing CMakeCache.txt, so other tools can query its build model.
Adds an existing CMake build directory (one containing CMakeCache.txt) that lies outside the workspace roots, e.g. /tmp/build-foo, so the other tools can query it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buildDir | Yes | Path to the build directory. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a genuine precondition beyond the name: the directory must contain CMakeCache.txt and must be outside the workspace roots. It does not say whether registration persists across sessions, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the path is invalid.
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 leads with the action and then qualifies the resource. It earns its length, though the three stacked qualifiers make it slightly dense rather than maximally scannable.
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 one-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the required precondition, and the downstream benefit. Remaining gaps (persistence, failure behavior, idempotency) are minor given the annotations already establish the safe read-only profile.
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% with a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the /tmp/build-foo example and the CMakeCache.txt validity constraint, which supplements the bare 'Path to the build directory' schema text without introducing syntax the schema lacks.
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 (adds/registers) and resource (an existing CMake build directory), plus the distinguishing scope constraint that it lies outside workspace roots. The trailing clause 'so the other tools can query it' clarifies its role relative to the sibling query tools. An agent can identify this without opening the schema.
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?
The description gives a clear condition for use: a build directory that lies outside the workspace roots, with a concrete example (/tmp/build-foo). It implies the directory would otherwise be invisible to the other tools, but does not name any explicit alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.