Rebuild generated README blocks (tables, Mermaid graphs, themes index) to keep collection docs current; set check=true to report stale blocks for CI without writing.
Rebuild the generated README blocks (tables + Mermaid). check=true only reports what is stale (for CI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | No | ||
| collection | No |
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 must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses that the default mode mutates generated blocks while check=true is a non-destructive report, but says nothing about what existing content is overwritten, permissions, or whether the blocks are delimited/safe.
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 compact sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the mode switch immediately after. Every clause 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?
For a 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the check mode but omits the collection parameter's meaning and hints about the return/state change of a rebuild.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains check well (reports stale content, CI-oriented), but the 'collection' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface unexplained.
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 concrete verb (Rebuild) and resource (generated README blocks), and specifies what those blocks are (tables + Mermaid). It is distinct from generic siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named check_docs sibling.
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 parenthetical '(for CI)' and 'check=true only reports what is stale' communicate the intended CI usage of the check mode, but there is no guidance on when to run the rebuild at all or how it relates to siblings like check_docs/validate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.