Lists configured music and video folders from midia.json with song and video counts, and checks whether VLC is installed to help verify media setup before playback.
Lista as pastas de música/vídeo configuradas em midia.json com quantas músicas e vídeos cada uma tem, e se o VLC está instalado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by naming the data source (the local `midia.json` config) and the shape of the result (per-folder counts plus a VLC-installed check). It does not state what happens if midia.json is missing or malformed, which is the main residual 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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the return contents. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so (folders, song/video counts, VLC status). Only failure modes for an absent or invalid config file are left unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only diagnostic.
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 to disambiguate and the schema cannot be improved upon. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ("Lista as pastas de música/vídeo configuradas em midia.json") and even previews the payload (counts per folder, VLC presence). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `status`, which an agent could plausibly confuse with `midia_status` from the names alone.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. Usage is only implied by the content described: an agent can infer it is a read-only configuration/inventory check that precedes `tocar_pasta` or `controle_midia`, but that inference is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.