Discovers NI registered content locations on Mac/Windows by reading known user and shared directories, without loading instruments or inferring licensing.
Read NI registered content locations on Mac/Windows and known user/shared directories. Does not load instruments or infer licensing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a non-destructive read ('Read') and explicitly discloses what it does NOT do ('Does not load instruments or infer licensing'), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw purpose.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the scope qualifier (Mac/Windows + user/shared dirs) plus the non-behavior negation each earn their place.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read operation), the description covers what the tool does, where it operates, and what it explicitly avoids. It could optionally mention the return format, but for a discovery read this is a minor gap.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per baseline, 0 params warrants a 4; the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.
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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('NI registered content locations on Mac/Windows and known user/shared directories'). The negation 'Does not load instruments or infer licensing' differentiates it from instrument/plugin siblings. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the registered content root locations, and not when it wants to index or search content. However, no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., content_register_root, content_index) is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.