Identify which Logseq graph is being read, its size, and which days have journals to confirm available data before querying notes.
Which graph is being read, how big it is and which days have journals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds modest value by disclosing the shape of the payload (graph identity, size, journal days), but says nothing about cost, freshness, or scope limits. Adequate against a low annotation bar.
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 short sentence with no waste, and the returned-field list is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a proper statement, which slightly weakens the phrasing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated here, and annotations carry the safety semantics. With zero parameters, the remaining burden is simply identifying the tool's role, which the description roughly does. The missing piece is routing guidance relative to its many siblings.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument surface for the description to clarify or obscure.
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 names the resource (graph) and enumerates what is returned: current graph identity, size, and days containing journals. However, it opens with an interrogative fragment ('Which graph is being read') rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_journal or list_tasks. The purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.
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?
There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of siblings such as get_journal or list_tasks. The agent must guess that this is the discovery/orientation call rather than a journal-content call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.