Returns a one-line index of existing lipidomics reports, showing analysis ID, date, and status. Resolves duplicate analysis IDs across directories using the later modification time.
既存レポートの1行索引（analysis_id / date / status）を返す。
候補ディレクトリ横断で同一 analysis_id が重複する場合は mtime が最新の1件を採用する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's real contribution is the non-obvious deduplication rule: when the same analysis_id appears across candidate directories, the newest mtime wins. That is a genuine behavioral disclosure an agent could not get from annotations or schema. It leaves ordering of the returned index and empty-result behavior unstated.
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, zero waste: the first front-loads what is returned, the second covers the one edge case that matters. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the three index fields, plus it resolves the duplicate-analysis_id ambiguity. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and what an empty index looks like.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.
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 (returns) and resource (1-line index of existing reports) and enumerates the returned fields (analysis_id / date / status), which separates it from read_report's full-document retrieval. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling pair write_report/read_report, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 never says when to call this versus read_report or write_report, nor does it state any prerequisite or follow-up step. An agent must infer that this is a discovery/index step before reading a specific report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.