Check the local card library's build status, including card counts per event, years covered, and overall build progress to verify data readiness for debates.
Whether the local card library is built, how many cards per event, years covered, and build progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers any side effects, or what the exact return format is. For a status tool this is acceptable, but the lack of any behavioral disclosure beyond the content list is a 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key details. It is concise without being under-specified.
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?
For a parameterless status tool, the description covers the main information it returns (built status, per-event counts, years, progress). No output schema exists, so the description compensates adequately. It could mention return format, but for a status tool this is minor.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Nothing more 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 states a specific resource (the local card library) and the kind of information it provides (status, counts, coverage, progress). It is clear and distinct from siblings like build_library (which builds) and search_cards (which searches), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a pre-build check or that it complements build_library. The agent must infer its role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.