Retrieve stored seed papers from the local literature database, with an option to show only enabled seeds. Use it to inspect seeds without reading config.yaml.
List seed papers stored in the local DB (preferred over config.yaml).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 says nothing about whether this is a safe read, whether pagination or result limits apply, or how disabled seeds are treated. 'List' and 'stored in the local DB' imply read-only and data source, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the source-of-truth note appended. No wasted verbiage, though the brevity comes partly from omitted needed information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. Still, the undefined enabled_only semantics and the absence of any behavioral note for an annotation-free tool leave a meaningful 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'enabled_only' (default false) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain whether disabled seeds are returned by default, which is exactly the decision the parameter 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List seed papers') and narrows the scope to the local DB, which separates it from a config.yaml source and from siblings like list_queries. It does not, however, differentiate itself from search_local or similar listing siblings.
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 parenthetical '(preferred over config.yaml)' gives implied guidance about which source to consult, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance against the many sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.