Fetches captions for every file in a dataset and reports the number of missing captions, so you can find uncaptioned files before training.
Captions for each file in a dataset (empty string = uncaptioned), plus a count of missing ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| caption_ext | No | txt |
| 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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world scope are covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that empty string means uncaptioned and that a missing-caption count is included, but it does not explain limit behavior, caption extension handling, or result ordering.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key output semantics are placed immediately, and the parenthetical detail is compact.
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 and annotations cover safety, reducing the description's burden. However, with zero schema description coverage on three input parameters, the description should say more about limit and caption_ext to be fully complete.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It effectively clarifies the dataset parameter and caption meaning, but it says nothing about limit or caption_ext, leaving two parameters undocumented.
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 clearly states the resource being returned: captions for each file in a dataset, with empty strings indicating uncaptioned files. It distinguishes retrieval from mutation siblings like set_captions by saying captions are returned, but it does not explicitly contrast with auto_caption_dataset or set_captions.
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 description implies this is for reading captions, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. It does not say when to prefer this over list_datasets, set_captions, or auto_caption_dataset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.