Retrieve project, path, VCS, config, and agent details in one call, optionally for a chosen directory, so OpenCode MCP clients can load context without multiple requests.
Get project context in one call: project, path, VCS, config, agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" clearly signals a read, and the description usefully discloses the returned components given there is no output schema. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, or behavior when the directory is missing/invalid.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the aggregation benefit, then the payload list. No filler; every token carries 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only aggregator with no output schema, listing the returned components is the key thing the description must do, and it does so. Minor gap: no statement of read-only safety or failure behavior, which matters slightly more because annotations are absent.
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% and the sole `directory` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-project fallback. The description adds no parameter detail, 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?
Specific verb ("Get") plus resource ("project context") with an explicit enumeration of the payload: project, path, VCS, config, agents. The phrase "in one call" implicitly distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings (opencode_project_current, opencode_vcs_info, opencode_config_get, opencode_path_get, opencode_agent_list), though none are named.
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?
"In one call" hints that this is the bundled alternative to making several sibling calls, which implies usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no named alternative, and no note on when the granular sibling tools are preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.