Report the number of filings held in each configured sink, returning per-sink counts or errors without retrieving rows.
Use this to report how many filings each configured sink holds.
Returns a per-sink count (or a per-sink error). Counts only; it does not return rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns a per-sink count or a per-sink error, and it never returns rows. This clarifies the tool's output shape and limitations without contradicting the 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?
Two short sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral caveat ('does not return rows') is stated immediately after the main claim. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only counting tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect (per-sink count or error) and what not to expect (rows), which is sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 has zero parameters and full schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. It implicitly confirms that the operation runs across all configured sinks with no arguments, which is all that is needed here.
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 ('report'), a clear resource ('how many filings each configured sink holds'), and explicitly differentiates the tool from row-returning siblings by adding 'Counts only; it does not return rows.' The name count_filings is expanded into a precise, actionable statement.
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?
It clearly says when to use the tool: to report per-sink filing counts. It also provides an exclusion ('does not return rows') that helps an agent avoid selecting it when row-level data is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_filings or get_filings for those row-level needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.