Analyzes a volume's file structure and format, providing details about its organization and content layout to enable further processing or navigation.
Analyze the file structure and format of a volume
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume_id | Yes | Volume ID to analyze |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.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 only states the action ('Analyze') without confirming read-only semantics, side effects, or what the analysis yields. The tool appears non-destructive by inference only, not by 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 clean sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is concise, though minimal to the point of being terse.
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 only one fully-covered parameter and an output schema present, the structural requirements are met. However, the description does not clarify what 'analyze' produces relative to the get_* siblings or when it is the right choice, which is a meaningful gap given no annotations exist.
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 100% — the single parameter volume_id is already documented as 'Volume ID to analyze' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('file structure and format of a volume'), giving a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_volume_info or get_navigation_tree, which could overlap conceptually with volume structure and info.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_volume_info or get_navigation_tree. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess which of several overlapping tools to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.