List Maps and Journals with kind, ontology mode, concept types, and expanded-concept count to navigate a versioned Markdown wiki.
Lists Maps and Journals with kind, ontology_mode, concept_types and expanded-concept count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile, and the description adds the returned field set. It does not disclose volume, ordering, pagination, or whether results are cached, which is relevant for a listing 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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource with zero filler. Every clause (fields returned) earns its place.
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?
For a zero-param read-only lister, annotations and the schema cover most of it, and no output schema exists so the return field list is a useful addition. But with 40+ siblings and no output schema, a brief statement of result shape/pagination would make it complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly signals the tool is parameterless by not claiming any filtering options.
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?
Clear verb (Lists) plus resource (Maps and Journals) and even enumerates returned fields. It distinguishes itself from map_create/map_delete/map_update by naming all of them via the map_ prefix, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives among the many siblings. The agent must infer that this is the discovery/listing entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.