Scan a directory tree to load datasets and upsert metadata into a SQLite catalog, skipping unchanged datasets for incremental indexing.
Scan a directory tree, load every dataset found and upsert its metadata into a SQLite catalog. Incremental: unchanged datasets are skipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | Catalog SQLite path | |
| root | Yes | ||
| force | No | ||
| validate | No | Also store a health score | |
| max_depth | No |
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; it does disclose the key behavior that the operation is an upsert and that unchanged datasets are skipped. However, it never says what upsert overwrites in existing catalog rows, whether the operation is reversible, how errors on unreadable datasets are handled, or how expensive a large tree scan is.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters most. No filler or restated title.
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 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: return value, force/max_depth semantics, overwrite scope, and failure behavior are all unaddressed.
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 only 40% (only db and validate are documented), and the description adds nothing about root, max_depth, or force — 'force' in particular is left for the agent to guess as the override for the incremental skip. Besides a weak hint at the skip behavior, no parameter meaning is clarified beyond the schema.
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 concrete verb chain (scan, load, upsert) against a specific resource (directory tree → SQLite catalog), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like catalog_search and catalog_stats. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'Incremental: unchanged datasets are skipped' implies the tool's role for repeat runs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the natural follow-up tools (catalog_search, catalog_stats, quality_report). An agent must infer the workflow placement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.