Retrieve a project's structure, Git status, docs, and current work handoff to give agents the context needed for local development tasks.
Return high-signal project structure, Git state, docs, and current work handoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| depth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope (structure + Git + docs + handoff) but says nothing about output size, cost, truncation, or how the bundle is assembled. Below the bar annotations set, but not empty.
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 beyond the mildly vague "high-signal." Nothing extraneous; the scope is stated immediately.
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 need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a composite read tool with an undocumented `depth` control and no routing guidance against overlapping siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient.
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%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters, and it mentions neither. The required `path` and especially the `depth` parameter (default 2, presumably traversal/recursion depth) are left undefined, which is a real gap for a tool whose output scope depends on depth.
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 clear verb ("Return") and enumerates the resource bundle: project structure, Git state, docs, and work handoff. This reads as a composite/aggregator, which is somewhat distinguishable from single-purpose siblings like git_status or work_status, but the description never says it aggregates or how it differs. "High-signal" is an unquantified qualifier that doesn't sharpen scope.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The tool overlaps heavily with siblings (git_status, git_log, work_status, list_directory, read_file), yet the description gives no signal for preferring this bundle over those targeted calls. Usage must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.