Lists migration inventory and database-backed status for a repository when framework configuration is available. Use it to review applied and pending migrations.
List migration inventory and database-backed status when framework configuration is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| repository | Yes | Absolute or current-working-directory-relative repository path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a dependency on framework configuration and describes the output as 'database-backed status', but does not disclose behavior when configuration is unavailable or other side effects. This is moderate added context beyond annotations.
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 sentence with no fluff. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the conditional clause is packed efficiently. Every word contributes.
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 three parameters including a nested options object, an enum, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'database-backed status' returns, how options affect results, or what happens when framework configuration is not present. An agent would need to infer significant details.
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 only 33% — only 'repository' has a description. The phrase 'when framework configuration is available' loosely relates to the framework parameter, but offers no guidance on the 'options' object or how framework is supplied. This does not adequately compensate for the large schema coverage gap.
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 ('List'), resource ('migration inventory and database-backed status'), and a condition ('when framework configuration is available'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as generate_migration, explain_migration, and detect_migration_frameworks, whose verbs signal different actions.
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?
Provides a clear usage condition: use this tool when framework configuration is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition implies a boundary. This is more than implied usage but stops short of explicit routing to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.