Retrieve counts of local tools grouped by family and identify recommended skill-authoring tools for your MCP environment.
Counts of local tools by family plus recommended skill-authoring tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that it returns counts and recommended tools but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what the exact output structure is. For a simple overview tool this may be acceptable, but it lacks explicit transparency about safety or data format.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and free of extraneous detail.
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 explains what the tool returns (counts by family and recommended tools) but is vague about what 'family' means and the structure of the output. With no output schema, more detail is needed to help the agent interpret results. It also doesn't clarify the scope of 'local tools' or how this relates to other catalog tools. For a simple overview, this is minimally acceptable but not 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds context about the tool's output, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing further to explain.
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 tool's function: providing counts of local tools by family and recommended skill-authoring tools. This is specific and distinguishes it from tools like yaaif_catalog_overview (broader overview) and yaaif_local_tools_list (detailed list). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it doesn't fully differentiate, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used for quick counts rather than detailed listings, nor does it reference any sibling tools. An agent would have no indication of preferred scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.