lando_startStart a Lando project for Drupal development, using the current directory by default or a specified project name. Launch local environments before site operations.
Start Lando project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not say whether start is idempotent, blocking, long-running, or what side effects it has on the environment.
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 wasted words. It is structurally clean but under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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, but with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter the description leaves key invocation details unaddressed for a dev-environment start operation.
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% and the single parameter 'project_name' (default '.') is never mentioned in the description. With low coverage the description should clarify what the parameter means, but it does not.
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 states a verb and resource ('Start Lando project'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as lando_setup, lando_stop, or ddev_start, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus those.
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 guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this requires the project already be configured (vs lando_setup) or how it differs from ddev_start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.