Inspect native SCL inventory in a d3plot file for LS-PrePost builds without Python, using bounded staged input and a given path to report available SCL data.
Native SCL inventory with bounded staged input for builds without Python.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states permissions, return format, or what 'bounded staged input' concretely means or its limits. The single cryptic phrase is not enough to inform the agent about the tool's runtime behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient, but the terseness comes at the cost of clarity rather than being genuinely economical. Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must carry the whole load and does not. An agent lacks the input semantics, the return shape, and the behavioral profile needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 sole parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage and no enums, and the description provides no added meaning about its expected format or what it should point to. With only one required, undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's silence.
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 phrase 'Native SCL inventory' gestures at the resource (SCL) but never states a clear verb+outcome, and 'bounded staged input for builds without Python' obscures rather than clarifies what the tool actually does. It is indistinguishable at a glance from the sibling probe_scl and cannot be separated from it without further context.
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?
The only usage hint is the bare qualifier 'for builds without Python,' which implies a condition but names no alternative (e.g., probe_scl) and gives no explicit when/when-not framing. An agent cannot reliably know when to prefer this over the sibling SCL tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.