Check project architecture health with live drift detection, isolated blocks, ghost blocks with code, and pending verification gates to identify issues before they impact development.
Inspect project architecture health, live drift detection, isolated blocks, ghost blocks with code, and pending verification gates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only safety profile via 'Inspect,' and it lists the kinds of status information returned (drift, blocks, gates). However, it does not disclose output shape, whether any live computation triggers side effects, or typical cost/performance traits.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the list of inspectable aspects is compact. It earns high marks for brevity, though the dense enumeration slightly reduces readability.
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?
Given four optional parameters, zero output schema, and no annotations, the description alone is insufficient. It fails to explain what parameters to supply, how results are returned, or what distinguishes this status snapshot from related tools. An agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly based on this definition alone.
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 description does not mention any of the four parameters (locale, projectRoot, taskContextId, includeStructured). It provides no compensation for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, leaving an agent to guess what each field is for.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies the resource as 'project architecture health' plus four concrete aspects (drift, isolated blocks, ghost blocks with code, verification gates). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinctive, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like graph_validate or graph_search.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred conditions, and the sibling list contains closely related tools (graph_validate, graph_search) with no contrast provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.