Skip to main content
Glama

Index status

tg_index_status
Read-only

Lists chats in the local index with file counts, total size, and full-index status so you can verify which conversations are ready for offline search before running queries.

Instructions

List chats in the local index with file counts, total size and whether they are fully indexed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tg_index_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoKeep only these fields in list items (e.g. ["message_id","name","size"])
formatNocompact = lists as {columns, rows} tables; saves a lot of context for long listingsjson
accountNoAccount id (see tg_list_accounts). Defaults to the default account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds what fields come back. It says nothing about ordering, whether counts are exact or cached, or the mild tension that annotations mark this openWorldHint=true while the description emphasizes a purely local index.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with the differentiating detail. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter listing with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers enough: it names the entity and the three result attributes. It could go further by noting ordering or how to interpret an incompletely indexed chat.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters (fields, format, account) are documented with an example and a default, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case when coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List chats in the local index') and enumerates the payload (file counts, total size, fully-indexed flag), so the agent can predict the return shape. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tg_list_dialogs, which lists live dialogs rather than indexed ones.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'local index' signals this is for checking indexing coverage rather than browsing chats. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to tg_index_chat for actually indexing a chat that shows as incomplete.

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