Inspect indexed Bible library sources with versions, licenses, row counts, and verification status against manifests and the index.
Sources in the index with versions and licenses, row counts, and whether the library currently verifies against its manifests and matches the index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (versions, licenses, row counts) and the verification concept, which is important given there is no output schema. It does not explain what 'verifies against its manifests and matches the index' means operationally, leaving interpretation gaps.
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?
It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with an action verb and the trailing verification clause is dense. Structuring it as 'List index sources with …' would improve scanability.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description does cover the likely return fields. It still leaves ambiguity about what 'the index' refers to and whether this enumerates installed modules or another collection, which an agent would need to know before calling.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 ('Sources in the index') and the metadata returned (versions, licenses, row counts, verification status), which differentiates it from siblings like xrefs, schema, and search. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no action verb ('list' or 'enumerate'), so the precise operation is only implied.
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 tool versus alternatives such as schema or search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description states content but gives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.