storage_checkChecks a storage table for 3-2-1 backup compliance and calculates yearly costs, using only the supplied prices instead of inventing them.
3-2-1 backup check and yearly cost from a storage table. Never invent prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_file | 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": "storage_checkOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only behavior is already covered by annotations, and the description usefully adds that results include a computed yearly cost which must be reported verbatim rather than fabricated — a real constraint beyond the structured fields. It still omits what happens with a missing/malformed table and gives no sense of the result shape.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function, with no filler. The closing directive is terse and earns its place, though the whole package is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the broad intent. It falls short on the one thing an agent most needs — what table_file actually accepts — and on how failures are surfaced.
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% and table_file has no description at all. The phrase 'from a storage table' weakly implies the parameter is a table file, but nothing clarifies whether it is a path, filename, sheet name, or whether it must pre-exist — so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states the two outputs — a 3-2-1 backup check and a yearly cost — plus the input source (a storage table), so the gist is graspable. But there is no explicit verb, and it is not distinguished from sibling checks like verify, plan_check, catalog_check, or inventory, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
It never says when to reach for this versus the other check/verify siblings, nor any preconditions (does the table need to exist already? what format?). 'Never invent prices' is an output-fidelity instruction, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer the trigger conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.