swarme_vault_documentsReturn sanitized Vault document inventory metadata without document contents, artifact bytes, share tokens, or direct download links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| include_templates | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a significant behavioral trait: results are sanitized and omit content, bytes, tokens, and links. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or side effects, but the core read-only-looking behavior is communicated.
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 compact sentence that leads with the primary action and then specifies the key exclusions. Every phrase adds information, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
The presence of an output schema covers return-value structure, and the description explains the sanitization boundary. However, it lacks guidance on parameter semantics and does not clarify how the listing behaves with respect to the sibling tools, leaving an agent to infer usage context.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the main description does not mention 'limit' or 'include_templates'. The parameter names and types are moderately self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanations, nor does it explain how these parameters affect the returned inventory.
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 and resource: 'Return sanitized Vault document inventory metadata'. It clearly defines what the tool does and, crucially, what it deliberately excludes (contents, artifact bytes, share tokens, download links), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like swarme_vault_fill and swarme_tool_artifacts.
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 implies this is a metadata-only listing operation, and the exclusions hint that it is not for retrieving content or artifacts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any conditions that should route an agent to another 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.
Tools are grouped into distinct resource families (account, AI, capabilities, discover, experiments, tool runs, uploads, vault), so most are easy to tell apart. However, multiple 'status' tools and the two Vault metadata tools (documents and summary) could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools share a consistent swarme_ prefix and snake_case style, making them predictable. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, and there is a plural mismatch between swarme_capabilities_search and swarme_capability_describe, but the naming is generally coherent.
22 tools is on the heavy side and above the typical 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. While the platform covers many domains and each tool has a role, several status-related tools could have been consolidated.
Core workflows like tool runs, experiments, AI model jobs, and Vault fills are well covered. Notable gaps remain: no cancellation for AI jobs or experiments, no listing endpoints for runs/experiments, no Vault field read/delete, and the upload session has no companion completion/status tool.