Summarize SONAR-registered plugins with counts, categories, and missing-file warnings by reading SONAR's scan results, even when SONAR is not running.
Summarise the plugins SONAR has registered: counts, categories, and any registered plugin whose file is missing. Reads SONAR's own scan result, so it works whether or not SONAR is running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden: it says the tool reads SONAR's own scan result and works independently of whether SONAR is running. The word 'Reads' also implies a safe read operation, though it does not explicitly discuss side effects or permissions.
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 sentences with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key operational detail about reading SONAR's scan result.
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?
The description covers what the tool returns (counts, categories, missing plugins) and a key availability constraint (works whether SONAR is running). Given the absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool is appropriate 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 and resource: summarising SONAR-registered plugins, including counts, categories, and missing-file detection. It is clear enough to distinguish this summary tool from plugin-action siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as cw_find_plugin.
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 provides useful context that the tool reads SONAR's own scan result and works whether or not SONAR is running. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like cw_find_plugin or cw_plugin_insert_recipe, leaving alternatives implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.