corpus_healthCheck whether the corpus search infrastructure is operational and get key stats: search mode, semantic embedding status, chunk count, and document count.
Status and stats of the corpus search infrastructure.
Returns: mode (hybrid), semantic_live (embedding search online), chunk_count, doc_count
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic ('Status and stats') and names the fields reported, but never states explicitly that it is non-mutating, whether it hits the network or a cache, or how expensive/quick it is. The Returns list adds some behavioral value.
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?
One front-loaded sentence plus a compact field list - no filler. The Returns block partially restates what the output schema already carries, which is mild redundancy but still aids quick reading.
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 no-parameter diagnostic with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete: it says what the tool reports and what the key fields mean. Only an explicit read-only/cost statement would improve it.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The prose adds no parameter detail because none exists.
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 resource and outcome: 'Status and stats of the corpus search infrastructure.' This cleanly separates it from every sibling, which are all search/retrieval tools rather than a diagnostics endpoint. It doesn't need sibling routing language because nothing else exposes infrastructure state.
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?
Usage is only implied - an agent can infer you call this to check whether the semantic index is online. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., before relying on corpus_semantic_search, or when searches return nothing) and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.