Retrieve per-branch counts of active loans, overdue items, due-soon items, and open holds to compare branch workloads and identify where attention is needed.
Per-branch counts: active loans, overdue, due soon, and open holds.
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden; 'counts' implies a read-only aggregation, which is the main behavioral signal an agent needs. However, it does not say whether results cover all branches or the caller's scope, nor how fresh the numbers are — relevant for a reporting tool.
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?
One short sentence that front-loads the key fact (per-branch counts) and then enumerates the metrics. Nothing is wasted and the important content comes first.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to say what the tool aggregates, which it does. It falls slightly short on scope and on defining fuzzy windows such as 'due soon' and 'overdue', which affect interpretation of the returned counts.
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 baseline is 4; the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed.
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 names a specific resource (branches) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: active loans, overdue, due soon, open holds. It is clearly the only aggregate/counting tool among action-oriented siblings like list_loans and due_soon, though it does not explicitly say so.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing distinguishes this per-branch summary from due_soon or list_overdue, which an agent might otherwise reach for to answer similar questions. The agent must infer that this is the dashboard-style aggregate view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.