Lists each partition's rules, live count, oldest age, sweep due status, and closed state, plus active records outside any partition. Aids GDPR storage-limitation compliance.
Every partition with its rules, live count, oldest age, whether a sweep is due, and its closed state; plus how many active records sit outside any partition. The storage-limitation view (GDPR Art. 5(1)(e)).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.39.0Does 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 a good job disclosing what the report exposes: every partition's rules, live counts, oldest age, sweep due state, closed state, plus out-of-partition records. The word 'view' also signals a read-only inspection, although it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the full content of the report, and the second adds a concise regulatory/purpose label. Every element 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-parameter report with no output schema, the description is complete: an agent knows exactly what the report covers, what fields are included, and why it exists. No additional context is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain beyond the fact that no arguments are needed, and the description makes the report's scope fully self-contained.
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 identifies the resource (all partitions) and the exact data returned: rules, live count, oldest age, sweep-due status, closed state, and records outside any partition. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'reports,' but the tool name plus this content make its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from partition mutation siblings like open_partition and sweep_partitions.
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 phrase 'The storage-limitation view (GDPR Art. 5(1)(e))' implies the intended use case for retention/storage-limitation assessments, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related reports like compliance_report, retention, or memory_report, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.