Lists available local Tajwid rules and shows whether a detector exists for each, optionally filtered by family, so you can check rule coverage before analysis.
List the available local rules and whether a detector exists for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact beyond that — the result includes detector availability per rule, i.e. coverage metadata rather than rule definitions. It does not say anything about ordering, filtering behavior, or what happens when a family has no rules, but with rich annotations this is acceptable.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped by a second clause that carries real information. No filler, though the phrasing 'available local rules' is slightly compressed at the cost of clarity.
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 described, and the annotations cover safety. What is missing for a simple enumeration tool is the meaning of the optional family filter and any hint about how this listing relates to the analysis tools in the sibling set.
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?
There is a single optional parameter, 'family', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent reading only the description would not know it can scope the listing by family, nor what values 'family' accepts; the description should compensate for the missing schema documentation and does not.
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 (list) and resource (local tajwid rules) plus an unusual detail — it reports whether a detector exists for each rule — which an agent can use to distinguish it from get_tajwid_rule. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, and 'local rules' is slightly ambiguous (local to what?).
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 guidance on when to call this versus get_tajwid_rule or analyze_qaloun_tajwid; the agent must infer that this is a discovery/enumeration step. Nothing indicates whether it is meant as a first call to see coverage before running an analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.