Generates a structured JSON inventory of all core Nexus objects, enabling AI assistants to inspect and document repository resources in one machine-readable output.
Generate a structured JSON inventory of all core Nexus objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the output serialization format (JSON); it does not state scope (whole repository vs. current workspace), whether it scans the filesystem, or any cost/limit, which is what would earn a higher score given the annotation coverage.
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, which is well-matched to a parameterless generator. It is arguably over-terse for a whole-repository scan, but every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is scope and differentiation: with eleven sibling artifact generators and no parameters, the description should say what "core Nexus objects" are and how this JSON inventory differs from the Markdown catalog.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and 100% described. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 ("Generate") and a specific artifact ("structured JSON inventory of all core Nexus objects"). An agent knows the action and output format, but "core Nexus objects" is undefined and nothing distinguishes it from the near-identical sibling nexus_generate_repository_catalog_md, which presumably produces the same inventory in Markdown.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance at all. The many siblings (catalog_md, architecture_md, audit_report, capability_map) all produce repository-level artifacts, so the agent is left to guess which artifact it wants and when JSON is preferable to Markdown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.