List every scraped web source stored in your private brain memory, showing URL, date, markdown file path, and title.
Lista todas las fuentes scrapeadas (url, fecha, path del .md, título).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Lista' clearly indicates a read-only operation and explicitly states the output fields, which is adequate for a parameterless listing tool. It does not mention potential pagination or data freshness, but these are minor for this simple use case.
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 sentence with a parenthetical list of fields, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundant detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are already structured. Combined with zero parameters, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The only minor gap is not clarifying how 'sources' relate to sibling list_vault, but that does not block usage.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no input semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add value for parameters that do not exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') with a clear object ('todas las fuentes scrapeadas') and enumerates the returned fields (url, fecha, path del .md, título). This makes the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like list_vault and list_skills by resource type.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_vault, search_knowledge, or save_url. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.