Displays a knowledge base directory tree from an entry page or parent node, with configurable depth up to five levels, to help you review what you have recorded.
查看知识库目录树（默认从入口页开始，最多 3 层），用于回答“我都记了什么”。
Args: parent_node_token: 从哪个节点开始，留空表示配置里的入口页。 depth: 展开层数，1–5。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| parent_node_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important behavioral traits: the default entry point and a depth cap (default 3, range 1–5). It does not state that the operation is read-only in so many words, nor whether large trees are truncated or paginated beyond the depth limit, which matters for a browsing tool on an unknown-sized corpus.
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?
Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact per-argument list; there is no filler. The Args block is slightly redundant in formatting but each line adds information.
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 shape need not be explained, and both parameters are covered semantically. What is left unaddressed is minor but real: read-only nature and any size/truncation limits on the returned tree.
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 coverage is 0% and neither param has a description in the schema, so the description must compensate, and it does: parent_node_token is defined as the starting node with empty meaning the configured entry page (a semantic the bare default "" does not convey), and depth is given the range 1–5 that the schema omits. Only the token format itself remains unspecified.
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?
"查看知识库目录树" states a specific verb and resource, and adds scope (default starts at the entry page, max 3 levels) plus a concrete use case ("answering what have I written down"). It is implicitly distinguishable from kb_search/kb_read as a structural browse rather than a query or single-page read, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
The phrase "用于回答'我都记了什么'" gives an implied usage context, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to prefer kb_outline over kb_search or kb_read, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so routing still requires the agent to infer from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.