Analyze an app and create AGENTS.md to prepare an OpenCode session via opencode-http-mcp, using provider/model IDs; runs 30-60s+.
Analyze the app and create AGENTS.md for a session. Long-running (30-60s+).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| modelID | Yes | ||
| variant | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. | |
| messageID | Yes | ||
| providerID | Yes |
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 burden. It usefully discloses the long-running nature (30-60s+), which is real behavioral value, but it omits whether an existing AGENTS.md is overwritten, whether analysis is read-only, and what side effects occur.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the latency warning both front-loaded. Nothing here needs trimming.
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?
A long-running mutating tool with 6 parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits overwrite semantics and the role of the four required IDs, so it is not sufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 only 17% (just 'directory'), and the description says nothing about any of the 6 parameters. The 4 required IDs (id, messageID, providerID, modelID) are completely unexplained in both prose and schema, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.
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 pair (analyze, create) and a concrete artifact (AGENTS.md), which separates it from generic session tools like opencode_session_create. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling opencode_project_init, which by title sounds like it does the same thing.
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 guidance on when to run this versus opencode_project_init or opencode_session_create, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must exist first). The 60+ sibling list gives an agent plenty of reasons to need routing help that this description does not provide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.