Check semantic index status and safety settings to verify your Obsidian vault is configured correctly.
Return semantic index status and safety settings.
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": "index_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states a read-only operation ('Return'), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose error conditions or authentication needs, but for a simple parameterless status check, the clarity is sufficient.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, earning its place.
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?
While the purpose is clear, the description does not elaborate on the return value's structure or content. Since there is no output schema, more specificity about what 'status and safety settings' includes would be beneficial for a complete understanding.
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?
There are 0 parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('semantic index status and safety settings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_notes and index_vault, which serve different purposes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or contrast with sibling tools like index_vault.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.