ontology-atlas

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_kinds

Read-only

Count ontology entries by type, showing totals per kind to gauge vault size and focus areas instantly, without scanning individual concepts.

Instructions

Vault kind distribution — { total, byKind: { capability: N, ... } }. A quick census so AI agents can size up the vault without paging through list_concepts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes	Total number of vault docs that declare a kind.
`byKind`	Yes	Node counts keyed by frontmatter kind.
`referencedOnlyTotal`	Yes	Number of slugs referenced by graph relations without a corresponding node document.
`conceptsIncludingReferenced`	Yes	Documented nodes plus referenced-only slugs, matching the graph-visible concept census.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.5Sep 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / conceptsIncludingReferenced

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Documented nodes plus referenced-only slugs, matching the graph-visible concept census.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / referencedOnlyTotal

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Number of slugs referenced by graph relations without a corresponding node document.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "total",
-  "byKind"
-]New value: +[
+  "total",
+  "byKind",
+  "referencedOnlyTotal",
+  "conceptsIncludingReferenced"
+]

First observedv0.13.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile. The description adds that this is an aggregate census returning total and per-kind counts rather than a paged list, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the output shape, the second adds the use case and sibling distinction. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only census, the description gives the purpose, the return shape, and the relationship to list_concepts. An output schema exists for the return value, so the description does not need to document the response fields further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly leaves the input side untouched and the schema already covers it entirely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states that the tool returns vault kind distribution with total and byKind counts, and differentiates it from list_concepts by positioning it as a quick census. It is clear, though it uses a noun phrase ('Vault kind distribution') rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'summarize'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says to use this tool for a quick census to size up the vault, and contrasts it with paging through list_concepts. It implies the alternative for item-level traversal but does not explicitly say 'use list_concepts when you need detailed concept listings.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.