List every table you have declared, with its fields and how many records each holds. Counts are top-level records only — entries in a nested table are not counted as records of the parent table. Use this before adding a record, to check the table exists and to see what fields it expects.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the counting rule that nested table entries are not counted as parent records, which the agent could not infer from annotations or schema.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, then the counting caveat, then the usage trigger. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a call returns (tables, their fields, record counts) and clarifies the counting edge case. Nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter read tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so nothing needs documenting and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none exists, which is correct.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List every table you have declared') and adds the two payload elements (fields and record counts), which makes it trivially distinct from record-level siblings like muninn_table_records_list.
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?
It gives a concrete trigger statement: 'Use this before adding a record, to check the table exists and to see what fields it expects.' That is a clear when-to-use, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives.
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.
