Get a compact project map covering architecture, ordered plans, chain paths, integration gates, and source-sync status without loading entity bodies.
Read a compact project map with architecture coverage, ordered Plans, Chain paths, explicit integration gates, and source-sync status without loading entity bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Read' and discloses a useful performance behavior: it does not load entity bodies. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or potential staleness, but for a read-only map tool this is adequate.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the map's contents without unnecessary words. Every clause adds information about what the tool provides.
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 read-only overview tool with all parameters optional, the description adequately explains the return contents and the lightweight nature of the call. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the agent still lacks guidance on how 'includeStructured', locale, or taskContextId affect the result—so this is only minimally complete.
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 adds no parameter-level meaning. Params like 'includeStructured' and 'taskContextId' are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their purpose. The description must compensate for the sparse schema and 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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('compact project map'), then enumerates exactly what the map contains: architecture coverage, ordered Plans, Chain paths, integration gates, and source-sync status. It also distinguishes itself from entity-level tools by stating it does so 'without loading entity bodies'.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs a compact, cross-cutting project overview rather than detailed entity contents. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.