list_collectionsRetrieve all vector collections in the Bismut Vector MCP database, showing each one's embedding model, dimensionality, document and chunk counts, and on-disk size.
List all vector collections with their embedding model, dimensionality, document/chunk counts, and on-disk size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by enumerating what is returned (embedding model, dimensionality, document/chunk counts, on-disk size), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It omits any mention of ordering or behavior on an empty collection set.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the returned fields follow. Every clause earns its place.
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 output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the five fields the agent will receive. For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.
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 ("List all vector collections") plus the exact attributes returned, so the agent knows this is a collection inventory rather than a search or stats call. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_sources or stats, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implicit rather than stated: a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool has an obvious call condition, and there is only one collection-listing sibling. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use stats for aggregate metrics).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.