codebase-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_index_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check index coverage and freshness for specified paths and scopes. Identify missing or stale entries with paged results and optional full diagnostics.

Instructions

Best-effort exact-path/scope coverage and freshness, paged separately. full diagnostics adds raw detail. Clean is not proof of completeness.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "check_index_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`paths`	No
`format`	No	tree
`scopes`	No
`project`	Yes
`path_limit`	No
`diagnostics`	No	none
`path_offset`	No
`scope_limit`	No
`scope_offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.11.0Sep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / diagnostics

Added value: +{
+  "default": "none",
+  "enum": [
+    "none",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / format

Added value: +{
+  "default": "tree",
+  "enum": [
+    "tree",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / path_limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 20,
+  "maximum": 128,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / path_offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / paths / description

Removed value: -"Repository-relative files to check exactly. Required if 'scopes' is omitted."

changedInput schema / properties / scope_limit / default
```
Previous value: -200New value: +20
```

removedInput schema / properties / scopes / description

Removed value: -"Repository-relative path prefixes; use . for the project root. Required if 'paths' is omitted."

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.10.4Aug 14, 2026

removedInput schema / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "paths"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "scopes"
-    ]
-  }
-]

changedInput schema / properties / paths / description

Previous value: -"Repository-relative files to check exactly."New value: +"Repository-relative files to check exactly. Required if 'scopes' is omitted."

changedInput schema / properties / scopes / description

Previous value: -"Repository-relative path prefixes; use . for the project root."New value: +"Repository-relative path prefixes; use . for the project root. Required if 'paths' is omitted."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Addedv0.10.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: 'Best-effort' signals potential incompleteness, 'paged separately' discloses pagination behavior, 'full diagnostics adds raw detail' explains an output mode, and 'Clean is not proof of completeness' is a crucial caveat for interpreting results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a diagnostics tip and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the density is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description provides a useful high-level concept but leaves gaps: it does not explain what 'coverage' or 'freshness' outputs look like, how tree vs json differ, or how to interpret 'clean'. The caveat about completeness is helpful but does not fully compensate for missing return-value semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for paths/scopes ('exact-path/scope'), pagination ('paged separately'), and diagnostics ('full diagnostics'). However, it leaves several parameters (project, format, limits, offsets) semantically unexplained, though some are self-evident from their names and defaults.

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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'exact-path/scope coverage and freshness'. It clearly indicates a read-only check operation with pagination, going beyond a mere restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like index_status, but 'exact-path/scope' is distinctive enough.

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 context is implied: you would call this when you need granular coverage or freshness for specific paths/scopes. The phrase 'full diagnostics adds raw detail' hints at when to set diagnostics=full. However, no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., index_status) are mentioned, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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

Deploy Server