Proton Suite Agent

Audit Proton Drive content

proton_drive_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan a staging directory and produce an inventory report with total files, breakdown by type, size, date, duplicates, and obsolete formats.

Instructions

Scans the staging directory and returns an inventory report: total files, by type/size/date, duplicates, and obsolete formats.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "proton_drive_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`staging_dir`	No	Override staging directory path
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`duplicates`	Yes
`totalBytes`	Yes
`totalFiles`	Yes
`obsoleteFiles`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds value by specifying the target directory (staging) and the report contents (duplicates, obsolete formats), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful and earned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and return content. No additional details are necessary for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (scans), resource (staging directory), and the output (inventory report with details). It distinguishes from siblings like proton_drive_list_files (lists files) and proton_drive_status (status).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for auditing but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings, there are list and organize tools, but no differentiation is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server