Check vault health and report issues with repair hints. Validates notes and context at selectable levels; never repairs anything itself, so you decide what to fix.
Check vault health. Reports findings with repair hints and never repairs anything itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Validation level. Defaults to strict. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the tool is diagnostic and non-mutating ('never repairs anything itself'). However, it says nothing about permissions, cost/duration of a full vault scan, or whether findings are blocking, which a doctor-style tool would benefit from stating.
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 with zero filler, and the core purpose plus the critical non-repair constraint are front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.
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 one-optional-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns in outline ('findings with repair hints'). It is close to complete; only the level semantics and return granularity are left entirely to the schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'level' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default of 'strict'. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Check vault health') and adds a scope-defining clause ('Reports findings with repair hints'). It is unmistakably distinct from all listed siblings, which are capture/search/work/context/checkpoint tools rather than diagnostics.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The clause 'never repairs anything itself' hints that repair happens elsewhere, but no sibling is pointed to, so the agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.