Register, inspect, list, or index RunningHub projects without changing files outside explicit roots.
Register, inspect, list, or index a project without changing files outside its explicit roots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| asset_roots | No | ||
| output_root | No | ||
| canonical_root | No | ||
| document_paths | No | ||
| policy_revision | No | ||
| backend_profile_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool will not change files outside explicit roots, which is a useful constraint, but it does not disclose which actions mutate state, required permissions, or other side effects.
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 that lists the operations and the scoping constraint with no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but the dimension rewards brevity and structure.
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?
With 8 parameters, four distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits action-specific behavior, parameter roles, and safety details, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly without guesswork.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only vaguely alludes to 'explicit roots' without explaining action, project_id, asset_roots, output_root, canonical_root, document_paths, policy_revision, or backend_profile_id.
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 names four specific operations (register, inspect, list, index) on a project resource, so the agent can tell what the tool does at a high level. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like rh_asset or rh_scene, and the multi-action scope is clarified only by the action enum in 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?
There is no guidance on when to choose register versus list versus inspect versus index, nor when to use this tool over sibling tools. The safety clause about explicit roots is a boundary statement, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.