Execute whitelisted project checks, such as tests, to verify project health without unsafe commands.
Run a whitelisted project check (e.g. 'tests').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about side effects, permissions, runtime, or failure behavior for what is an execution-style tool. The word 'whitelisted' hints at a restricted input set but never explains enforcement or consequences.
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 with no filler, which is structurally efficient. The brevity is under-specification rather than waste, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for an execution tool with no annotations the description should still cover side effects and the allowed input values. Neither is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete.
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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description must compensate; it does add a sample value ('tests') and implies a fixed allowed set via 'whitelisted'. But the actual list of valid check names — the single most useful piece of information — is absent.
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 (Run) and resource (project check), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings (get_docs, search_project_files, read_project_file). However, 'whitelisted project check' remains somewhat abstract — the only concrete anchor is the parenthetical example 'tests'.
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 invoke this versus the sibling read tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of the whitelist constraint's practical implications (e.g. what happens if the name isn't whitelisted). The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.