Retrieve record count and metadata for a specific Pinecone namespace by providing its index and namespace names. Use it to inspect namespace size and details before querying or managing vectors.
Describe one namespace: record count and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| namespace | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and briefly states the return contents, but says nothing about permissions required, behavior when the namespace doesn't exist (error vs empty), or rate limits.
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 tight sentence with the resource and return contents front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one-line summary is technically accurate. However, with two entirely undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent invoking it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and both required parameters ('index' and 'namespace') are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain the relationship between index and namespace or supply any format/syntax detail to compensate.
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 ('Describe') and resource ('one namespace') and even names the primary return contents (record count and metadata). An agent can distinguish it from list/delete namespace siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with pinecone_list_namespaces or pinecone_describe_index_stats.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as pinecone_list_namespaces or pinecone_describe_index_stats. The agent must infer the read/inspection use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.