Compute catalog totals from a database—including datasets per format, episodes, frames, duration, robot types, and last index time—to assess dataset coverage clearly.
Totals for the catalog: datasets per format, episodes, frames, duration, robot types and last index time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return metrics, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only aggregation, what the required database parameter represents, or any access constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned totals without waste. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool reports.
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 simple aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately lists the return metrics. However, it leaves the required parameter undocumented and provides no usage guidance, so it is only partially complete for correct invocation.
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 single required parameter 'db' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions or explains it. The description does not compensate for the schema gap by clarifying whether 'db' is a database name, catalog identifier, or path.
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 that this tool returns aggregate catalog totals, enumerating the specific metrics: datasets per format, episodes, frames, duration, robot types, and last index time. It is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like catalog_search or list_formats, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catalog_index, catalog_search, or list_formats. Usage is only implied by the mention of totals, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.