list_studio_catalogueReturns JSON row counts for all known Studio entity types so you can see what data exists before retrieving actual rows with specific list_* tools. Read-only.
Return row counts for every known Studio entity type. Use a specific list_* tool for the rows themselves. Read-only. Returns JSON counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the added 'Read-only' sentence is redundant. 'Returns JSON counts' adds a bit of return-format context, but that is largely covered by the output schema. Minor value beyond structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the disambiguation and a return note. No wasted wording.
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, read-only catalogue tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, and return type adequately. Nothing critical is missing, though it doesn't note whether the counts enumerate all types or how empty types appear.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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 and resource (return row counts for every Studio entity type) and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_* tools that return the rows themselves. An agent can tell exactly what this yields versus the per-entity listers without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use this for counts overview, and 'use a specific list_* tool for the rows themselves.' That is a clear when-to-use/when-to-use-otherwise instruction with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.