Browse hierarchical catalog of motion-capture, threat-intel, and rehab-biomechanics datasets. No path → root categories. Category path → children. Lesson path → file inventory, pricing, and MCP tool names. Free, no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Catalog path to browse, e.g. 'BJJ' or 'BJJ/Training/KimuraFromSideControl/Lesson001'. Omit for root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the read-only nature implicitly via 'browse', discloses pricing expectation ('Free, no payment required'), and describes output behavior for each input case. It omits edge-case behavior (invalid path, pagination, error handling), but the core behavioral traits are transparent.
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, each delivering distinct value: what it browses, the path-hierarchy behavior, and the pricing guarantee. No filler or repetition of schema information; it is front-loaded and compact while packing meaningful detail.
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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential scenarios (root, category, lesson) and even mentions pricing and MCP tool names, which is valuable contextual linkage to sibling tools. It could be more complete by addressing error cases or result formatting, but it adequately sets expectations for a browse operation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how different path formats (root, category, lesson) map to different result types, effectively providing semantics that the parameter description alone does not convey.
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 ('browse') plus resource ('hierarchical catalog') and explicitly enumerates the dataset categories (motion-capture, threat-intel, rehab-biomechanics). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by focusing on hierarchy traversal rather than file retrieval, and from search_catalog by presenting a path-based browse paradigm.
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 usage context by defining behavior for three path scenarios: no path (root categories), category path (children), and lesson path (file inventory, pricing, MCP tool names). It does not explicitly mention alternatives ('use instead of...'), but the path-dependent semantics imply when this tool is appropriate versus search or direct retrieval.
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.
