lando_execRuns a shell command inside the Lando container of a specified Drupal project directory, enabling Drush and other container-based operations.
Run command in the container of the Lando project under
project_name (a directory).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| project_name | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't state whether the command runs synchronously, what permissions are required, what happens on failure, or whether the container must be running. For an arbitrary command execution tool, these are significant gaps.
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?
Single sentence, reasonably front-loaded, but under-specified rather than concise – the brevity leaves critical gaps rather than efficiently packing needed information.
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 arbitrary-command-execution tool with no annotations, 0% param coverage, and only a one-line description leaves the agent unable to reliably call it. Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but execution semantics are 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains command and clarifies project_name is a directory (useful beyond the schema), but doesn't address the default '.', format requirements, or how project_name resolves to a specific Lando project.
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 (Run) and resource (command in Lando project container) with the scoping parameter. It's clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ddev_exec or drush_command siblings.
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 ddev_exec, drush_command, or other execution siblings. The agent must infer context from the Lando-specific naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.