Retrieve vault details including owner, member count, and document, table, file, and edge counts, plus last activity to assess vault health.
Get detailed vault information: owner, member count, document/table/file/edge counts, last activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | Yes | Vault name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4v2.0.1v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning counts and last activity, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, required permissions, or behavior for missing vaults. This is adequate but leaves minor gaps.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists key outputs without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and specific details.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, listing returned fields. It lacks information on error handling or permissions, but for an info retrieval tool, this is sufficient.
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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'vault' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, which is baseline acceptable.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed vault information, listing specific data points like owner, member count, and file counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as akb_list_vaults (which lists vaults without details) and akb_vault_members (focused solely on members).
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 usage for obtaining detailed stats on a single vault, contrasted with siblings like akb_list_vaults for overview. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for member-specific or activity-specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.