Display the Architecture Decision Record (ADR) directory to review all existing ADRs. Helps identify what decisions are recorded.
Show ADR directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what output is produced, whether any state changes occur, or what 'ADR directory' actually contains. This is minimal transparency.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: a single terse sentence does not provide enough information to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations and sibling ambiguity.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and selection context. It fails to explain what status information is shown or how it relates to adr_list, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 an empty input schema, so schema coverage is trivially complete. With no parameters, there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry; the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 'Show ADR directory.' uses a clear verb ('show') and names a resource ('ADR directory'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not clarify what 'status' means or how this differs from the sibling tool adr_list, which likely also presents ADR information. The purpose is therefore vague rather than fully specified.
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 guidance about when to use adr_status instead of adr_list or adr_new. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide between sibling tools based on this text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.