surveyAnalyze specified folder paths to inventory sizes, file types, duplicates, unclear names, stale files, and drive health, so you can identify cleanup and organization needs.
Stock-take of folders: sizes, types, duplicates, unclear names, stale files, drive health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | ||
| stale_years | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "surveyOutput",
- "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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a broad multi-dimension audit (including 'drive health' and stale-file detection), but it omits cost/scale expectations for what is likely an expensive recursive scan, and does not say whether results are aggregated or per-folder.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated audit dimensions are compact. It is slightly telegraphic ('drive health', 'unclear names') but nothing is wasted.
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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the audit results are structured or scoped, the description leaves real gaps. For a read-only survey that likely walks many folders, an agent needs at least scope, cost, and parameter semantics, none of which are present.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not: 'paths' is never explained (which folders? recursive? multiple roots?) and 'stale_years' is only obliquely hinted at by the phrase 'stale files' with no mention of the 3-year default or what the threshold controls.
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 a verb-like action (stock-take) and the resource (folders) plus the dimensions reported: sizes, types, duplicates, unclear names, stale files, drive health. However, 'stock-take' is jargon and the description never distinguishes this aggregate audit from siblings that cover the same ground individually (inventory, find_duplicates, storage_check, suggest_names, retention_due), so an agent cannot tell when this umbrella tool is the right pick.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the sibling list whether to run survey or compose inventory + find_duplicates + storage_check itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.