Retrieve the current working path of the OpenCode server, optionally targeting a specific project directory. Use it to confirm the active project path before running path-dependent actions.
Get the current working path of the opencode server.
| 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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, idempotent retrieval, but the description says nothing about return shape, whether the server default project matters, or any error conditions.
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 exactly the right shape for a trivial getter. It is well structured, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with no other supporting fields.
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 tool with no output schema, saying it returns 'the current working path' is just barely sufficient. It omits how the path relates to opencode_project_current and what the 'server default project' fallback means, which are the main ambiguities an agent would face.
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 100% and the single optional 'directory' parameter already documents its default behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., what changes when directory is supplied), which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.
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 specific verb+resource (get the current working path of the opencode server) that an agent can act on directly. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling opencode_project_current, so the agent cannot tell which one to reach for.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though opencode_project_current and opencode_vcs_info cover adjacent territory. The agent is left to infer context 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.