Returns the tapes held by the AADC MCP server with each tape’s ID, file, size, producing script, and applied source roots.
The tapes this server holds: id, file, size, the script that produced each, and the source roots applied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does describe the returned fields (id, file, size, script, source roots), which adds useful context about output. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any access requirements, leaving a gap.
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 and front-loads the resource and fields, with no extraneous text. It could be slightly more structured by starting with a verb, but it remains efficient.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential return fields but omits usage context and behavioral traits. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is empty and the description need not explain parameters. The baseline score of 4 applies.
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 identifies a specific resource (tapes held by the server) and enumerates the metadata returned, making it clear this is a listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state a verb like 'list' or differentiate from siblings such as inspect_tape, so it does not reach the highest clarity.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_tape or load_tape. The description is purely declarative and lacks any when/when-not or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.