Check a project's onboarding progress: view completed steps, the next step, and each step's value to understand where the project currently stands.
Setup progress — Welche Schritte erledigt sind, welcher als Nächstes dran ist und was jeder bringt. Beantwortet „wo steht dieses Projekt gerade?“.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, side effects) and does not contradict the annotations.
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 extremely concise, a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without superfluous words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key concept.
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?
Given the simplicity of a read-only getter, the description gives enough context for basic usage. However, there is no output schema provided and no mention of the response format, which leaves some ambiguity about what exactly is returned. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The only parameter, projectId, has no description in the schema and the description does not mention it. The tool name and context imply it identifies the project, but no explicit semantics are provided. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves onboarding/setup progress, listing completed steps, the next step, and their benefits. It answers the specific question 'where does this project stand?', which distinguishes it from more generic setup tools like getProjectSetup, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
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 provides context on when to use it (to understand project onboarding progress) and what question it answers, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from similar tools like getProjectSetup. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.