List indexed knowledge sources with per-source document counts, recent update times, and topic descriptions to identify available content for search and query planning.
인덱싱된 소스 카탈로그: 소스/구획별 문서 수·최근 갱신·설명("무엇을 잘 답하나"), 프로젝트 목록. 무엇이 검색 가능한지 파악할 때(도구 선택 전에) 먼저 호출하라.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns an indexed catalog of metadata—counts per source/section, recent updates, descriptions, and project list—rather than documents or search results, and implies a non-mutating listing operation. It doesn't detail caching or auth, but for a zero-parameter catalog listing this is sufficient.
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 compact sentence front-loads the core purpose ('인덱싱된 소스 카탈로그'), enumerates the returned content, and ends with an actionable usage directive. No filler or redundant restatement.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the only missing context an agent needs is when to invoke it and what it covers. The description provides both, including enough detail to navigate a large sibling set of search, retrieval, and record tools.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior to document; the description appropriately focuses on return content and use case.
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 and resource: listing an indexed source catalog with document counts per source/section, recent updates, descriptions, and projects. The phrase '무엇이 검색 가능한지 파악할 때' clearly positions it as a discovery/meta tool, distinguishing it from search and retrieval 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?
Explicit instruction to call it first before tool selection when figuring out what is searchable. Does not name specific alternatit uses or exclusion conditions, but '도구 선택 전에' gives a clear situational trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.