Checks retrieval status by listing libraries, listing successful snapshots for a library, or verifying a specific library and snapshot pair.
List libraries, list one library's successful snapshots, or verify one explicit library_id and snapshot_id pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | No | A stable library_id returned by retrieval_status. | |
| snapshot_id | No | A snapshot_id returned for the explicit library_id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'successful snapshots' and 'verify one explicit pair', which clarifies filtering and validation semantics beyond what the annotations convey.
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 sentence efficiently conveys three invocation modes without fluff. The action verbs are front-loaded and the alternatives are presented in a logical order, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 description covers the three main usage modes but does not describe return values or response structure, which matters because there is no output schema. It also leaves unclear what 'successful' snapshots means and what an unverified pair returns, leaving some gaps for an agent to resolve at runtime.
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?
Even though the schema describes both parameters as IDs returned by the tool, the description clarifies the crucial mode-mapping: no params means list libraries, only library_id means list snapshots, and both params means verify. This relationship is not present in the schema and is essential for correct invocation.
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 states specific actions ('List', 'list', 'verify') on specific resources ('libraries', 'successful snapshots', 'library_id and snapshot_id pair'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is implicitly distinct from the document-focused sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any 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 three listed use cases imply when to call the tool: no parameters to list libraries, library_id only to list snapshots, and both IDs to verify a pair. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how to choose among it and the sibling document-access tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.