Lists available document folders—service manuals, field safety notices, and compliance reports—so you can locate the resources you need.
Elenca le cartelle consultabili: manuali di service, avvisi di sicurezza (FSN), report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete set of roots returned, which is genuinely useful, but it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor that it takes no arguments and is the natural entry point.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource name front-loaded and the useful enumeration of roots immediately following. Nothing wasted, nothing padded.
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 values needn't be explained, and the zero-argument schema is trivial. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit routing context relative to read_dir and the other siblings, which matters for an entry-point tool.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the absence of 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?
States a specific verb ('Elenca') and resource ('cartelle consultabili'), then enumerates the root categories returned (manuali di service, FSN, report). This lets an agent distinguish it from read_dir, which presumably drills into a folder, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 word 'consultabili' (browsable) and the enumeration of root folders imply this is the top-level entry point before read_dir, but there is no explicit 'use this first / then call read_dir' routing instruction or any excluded case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.