inventoryLists files in a folder and, for selected areas, reports what changed or was moved manually since the last run so you can track document changes before filing.
Files in a folder; for areas also what changed or was moved by hand since the last run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "inventoryOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds stateful behavior — comparison against the 'last run' baseline and manual moves — but leaves undefined what a 'run' is or how that baseline is determined, which is important for a tool whose main differentiator is this delta.
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 very short with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity — the semicolon clause about 'areas' is left unexplained, so terseness here reads as under-specification rather than precision.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a stateful 'since last run' behavior, the description should explain the return shape and baseline concept. Neither is present, leaving key details for an agent to guess.
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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'path' parameter, and the description only weakly implies it is a folder. It never clarifies whether path may point to a file vs. a folder, or what an 'area' is in path terms.
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 says it returns files in a folder and, for 'areas', also changes/moves since the last run, which conveys the resource. But it lacks a clear verb, and the parenthetical phrase 'for areas' is undefined, so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish it from sibling list_folder.
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 choose inventory over list_folder, survey, or search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer the choice from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.