Check all ingested collections and their chunk counts to see what data is available for grounded retrieval.
List all ingested collections and how many chunks each contains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 provided, the description carries the transparency burden, and 'List' plus 'how many chunks each contains' conveys a read-only aggregation-style operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly mention caveats like ordering or rate limits, but for a parameterless listing tool the core behavior is clear.
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?
Exactly one sentence with no filler; the key verb, scope, and output are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is a simple parameterless listing operation with an output schema available, and the description specifies both the scope and the per-item chunk count. No prerequisite or return-shape detail is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds useful scope information ('ingested,' 'each') that clarifies what the empty parameter list returns.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'all ingested collections,' and specifies the returned information ('how many chunks each contains'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ingest_documents and search.
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 description implies the tool is for inspecting ingested collections, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives. The phrase 'ingested collections' signals it is relevant after ingestion, but there is no direct when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.