Audit read-only inactive shells: list them and optionally query a common BP for evidence before recommending an archive review.
Auditor de shells inactivos de solo lectura. Lista los shells inactivos y, opcionalmente, encadena la consulta de un BP común para aportar evidencia antes de recomendar una revisión de archivado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| bpname | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose read-only semantics ('de solo lectura') and the notable side effect that it may chain a BP lookup, which is useful. It omits permissions, rate/limits behavior, and what the result contains.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only framing and the action, with the optional chaining behavior following. No filler; brief without being cryptic.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers purpose plus the optional BP chaining. It still leaves the limit parameter and the shape of the returned evidence unexplained for a tool whose entire value depends on what evidence it returns.
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 both parameters lack documentation. The description implies the bpname parameter via 'encadena la consulta de un BP común', but the limit parameter (1-20) is never mentioned, and no format or effect for either parameter is explained.
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 specific verb and resource ('Lista los shells inactivos') with a scope qualifier (inactive) that separates it from the generic unifier_list_shells sibling. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the 'inactive' qualifier makes the distinction inferable.
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?
Implies the workflow ('aportar evidencia antes de recomendar una revisión de archivado'), giving context for why the optional BP query is chained. However, it never states when to use this tool versus unifier_list_shells or unifier_project_health, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.