Summarize storage for this account. Returns namespaces with key counts and file or vector inventory, narrowed to the key's namespace allow-list when one is set. Read only: no writes, no deletes, no quota spend, no email. Checks ACL inspect_storage. Use manage_kv action=list to page keys inside one namespace, and list_files view=files for file rows. Former name: inspect_storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only semantics ('no writes, no deletes, no quota spend, no email'), discloses the required ACL ('Checks ACL inspect_storage'), and notes the former name for alias resolution. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for an annotation-free tool.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then the read-only/ACL guarantees, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place, including the former-name alias hint.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values, and it does at an appropriate level of abstraction (namespace names, key counts, file/vector inventory). With zero params and covered ACL/read-only behavior, nothing material is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline rule for parameterless tools this is a 4. No parameter-level confusion is possible.
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 and resource ('Summarize storage for this account') and immediately enumerates the return contents (namespaces, key counts, file/vector inventory). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming manage_kv and list_files as the tools for the narrower operations.
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?
Explicitly routes to alternatives with their exact selectors: 'manage_kv action=list' for paging keys in one namespace and 'list_files view=files' for file rows. It also states the scoping condition ('narrowed to the key's namespace allow-list when one is set'), so an agent knows both when to use this tool and when to use a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.