Initialize a Soroban contract project at a given path, with optional contract naming and overwrite support.
Initialize a new Soroban contract project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name of the contract (default: hello-world) | |
| overwrite | No | Overwrite existing files if they exist | |
| project_path | Yes | Path where the project will be created |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose that this is a file-creating mutation, what files/directories get scaffolded, whether it fails on an existing directory, or whether permissions/network setup are needed. The 'overwrite' param hints at destructive overwrite behavior, but the description itself says nothing.
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 good. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – it has been trimmed past the point of usefulness for a scaffolding mutation.
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 file-creating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what the scaffold produces, directory side effects, and success/failure conditions. Parameter coverage is complete, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before running a write operation is not.
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%, so all three parameters (name, overwrite, project_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Initialize') and resource ('Soroban contract project'), so the agent knows this scaffolds a new project. It does not differentiate from siblings such as stellar_contract_build or stellar_contract_deploy, which also operate on contract projects.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a network must be configured first), and no note that it should only run for new projects. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.