Skip to main content
Glama

List what needs the reader

folio_needs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists and ranks what needs attention in a folder—errors, read-document problems, attention queries, and changed documents—so you can triage review priorities.

Instructions

List what needs the reader's attention, ranked: every error in the folder, then problems in documents they have read, rows of the folder's declared attention queries, and documents they read that changed since; with path, only what lies in that document or under that folder. Use it to triage what to look at first; for every problem whoever reads it use folio_health, and for only the documents changed since read folio_changes. It reveals what the reader has read. While the reader pauses sharing in Folio, it answers only {paused: true, message}. Answers {ready, needs: [{source: error, problem, attention or changed, path, line, block, what, name: the attention query's, at}], version: the same while the list is}; ready false, with no needs, while Folio still reads the folder. A list cut to fit one answer adds omitted, the entries each list left out, and narrow, how to ask for less.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoA document, relative to the served folder or absolute under it, such as notes/plan.md, or a folder, such as notes/; omit for the whole folder

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile; the description adds the substantive behavior: hard-coded ranking order, path scoping semantics, the paused-sharing response shape, the ready=false case while the folder is still being read, and truncation behavior with omitted/narrow fields. This is information an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded: purpose and ranking first, then call-site guidance, then response contract. It is dense and reads as run-on telegraphic prose ('with path, only what lies in that document...'), but almost every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: the needs entry fields (source, problem, path, line, block, what, name, at), the version field, the paused shape, and the omitted/narrow truncation fields. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or re-request results is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the path parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds scope semantics not in the schema wording — that a path restricts results to that document or anything under that folder, consistent with the ranking rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List what needs the reader's attention') and enumerates the ranked composition of the result: errors, problems in read documents, attention-query rows, then changed-since-read documents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from folio_health and folio_changes, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use case ('triage what to look at first') and names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: folio_health for every problem whoever reads it, folio_changes for only documents changed since read. It also states when the tool is degraded (reader paused sharing) and when readiness is false.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.