Report whether the Android repository knowledge base exists and is current, optionally verifying content, so agents can trust project context.
Report whether the knowledge base exists and is current.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verify_content | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful notion of 'current' (staleness detection), but says nothing about whether verification is expensive, whether it hits an external source, or what a stale result implies.
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 core purpose front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though that efficiency comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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 no explanation. However, the undefined verify_content flag and the absent routing guidance against kb_refresh leave gaps for an agent choosing between status-check and refresh.
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?
One parameter (verify_content) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With a single unexplained parameter that plausibly changes cost/behavior, the description should compensate but does not.
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 ('Report') and resource ('knowledge base') with two concrete conditions: existence and currency. An agent can distinguish it from kb_refresh (which mutates) and kb_search, though 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?
No statement of when to call this versus kb_refresh, kb_overview, or kb_list_layers, despite obvious overlap with a refresh/overview toolset. The reader must infer that this is a cheap pre-flight check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.