refero_index_statusCheck how many published styles exist and how many are indexed locally before concluding a style is missing; a miss often means it hasn't been indexed yet.
Report how many published styles exist and how many are indexed locally. Call this before concluding that a style does not exist: a miss usually means it has not been indexed yet.
| 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?
Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description is freed to add value—and it does, by explaining that published vs. indexed counts can diverge and that misses are expected prior to indexing. It does not describe the return shape, but with no output schema and simple counts, that gap is modest.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical usage constraint. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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-param, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what is counted and the diagnostic purpose. It would be marginally stronger if it hinted at the expected response fields, but that is a minor gap given annotations already indicate safety and idempotency.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs by describing a purely informational report, adding no confusing parameter hints.
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, concrete purpose: reporting published style count and locally-indexed count. Differentiates from siblings like refero_search_styles and refero_list_style_ids by framing itself as a coverage/diagnostic check rather than a retrieval tool.
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?
Explicitly names the condition for use: 'Call this before concluding that a style does not exist.' It also preempts the most likely misinterpretation ('a miss usually means it has not been indexed yet'), which is textbook when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.