Get a high-level overview of a project's architecture, including models, controllers, and jobs. Understand component structure and dependencies at a glance.
Get a high-level architectural overview of the project (Models, Controllers, Jobs, etc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses content categories (Models, Controllers, Jobs) but says nothing about read-only safety, output size/format, caching, or truncation behavior for what is likely a potentially large overview response.
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, and the parenthetical examples add signal rather than noise. Appropriately sized for a simple zero-arg tool, though it could have added a phrase of routing guidance at little cost.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and rough return content. It is largely complete for correct invocation, though a note on the scale/format of the overview would fully close the gap.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed or missing on the parameter front.
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?
Clear verb (Get) plus a specific resource (high-level architectural overview), with concrete content examples (Models, Controllers, Jobs) that let an agent predict the output. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like axon_pro_context or axon_pro_query, but the 'architecture/overview' framing is reasonably distinct.
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 states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing relative to the many siblings (axon_pro_context, axon_pro_query, axon_pro_related_files). An agent must infer that this is the orientation/first-look tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.