Reads a map's GIL header and node graph metadata—IDs, names, types, nodeCount, and editorCount—to verify graph contents and editor limit usage (3000).
Read GIL header and actual node graph IDs, names, types and counts (nodeCount, and editorCount: the size the editor counts against its limit of 3000).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It provides valuable technical context by specifically mentioning reading the 'GIL header' and defining 'editorCount' relative to the 3000 limit. This adds specific behavioral traits about the underlying file structure and constraints that goes beyond standard annotations.
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 dense and efficient, using one sentence to pack a large amount of information about the data being retrieved, making very little wasted space.
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 that there is no output schema, this description is highly complete for providing context on the returned data structure (e.g., knowing that 'nodeCount' and 'editorCount' will be present). It tells the agent exactly what kind of payload to expect.
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 0%, meaning the description is critical. However, since there is only one parameter (`mapPath`), and the description doesn't add unique semantic meaning to how that path should be formatted or constrained, it meets the baseline adequacy.
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 clearly states the tool reads structural data from a map file, including GIL headers, IDs, names, types, and various counts. This is specific about *what* data is extracted, helping distinguish it from tools that might only list entities.
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?
Usage is only implied by the action (inspect). It doesn't explicitly state that this tool should be used for validation or status checks, nor does it explain when a user might need to inspect versus listing entities or modifying the map.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.