List all records from an AimDB instance to inspect buffer type, capacity, producer/consumer counts, and timestamps.
List all records from a specific AimDB instance. Returns metadata including buffer type, capacity, producer/consumer counts, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | No | Endpoint URL (unix://PATH, serial://DEVICE?baud=N) or a bare path. Falls back to AIMDB_CONNECT env var if omitted. |
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 behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return content (buffer type, capacity, producer/consumer counts, timestamps), but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or auth beyond the parameter's env-var fallback.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Efficient, though the second sentence could be trimmed without loss.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description does need to describe return values, which it partially does. However, it omits list size, pagination, and ordering behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a list tool.
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 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so the schema already documents 'endpoint' fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the 3 baseline correct.
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 and resource ('List all records') scoped to 'a specific AimDB instance', which an agent can distinguish from the single-record sibling get_record. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_record, query_schema, or discover_instances, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.