Skip to main content
Glama
DeusData

codebase-memory-mcp

by DeusData
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

index_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess project indexing readiness, counts, and coverage gaps. Enable diagnostics for detailed coverage rows or verbose for Git path debugging.

Instructions

Project readiness, counts, root, and coverage gaps. diagnostics adds coverage rows; verbose adds Git paths. Best-effort only; verify cited paths with check_index_coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNotree
projectYes
verboseNoAdd worktree/shadow Git paths for index-location debugging.
diagnosticsNoCoverage rows: counts, five samples, or up to 500.none

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / diagnostics
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "none",
+  "description": "Coverage rows: counts, five samples, or up to 500.",
+  "enum": [
+    "none",
+    "summary",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "tree",
+  "enum": [
+    "tree",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / verbose / description
      Previous value: -"Include the git context block (worktree/shadow path variants). Only needed when debugging where an index lives — omitted by default to keep the status lean."New value: +"Add worktree/shadow Git paths for index-location debugging."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.4
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Addedv0.10.0
  4. Removedv0.9.0
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), and the description adds non-annotated behavioral context: 'Best-effort only' warns results may be incomplete or stale, and 'verify cited paths with check_index_coverage' sets a verification expectation. The parameter-effect notes ('diagnostics adds coverage rows; verbose adds Git paths') further describe behavior without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences in roughly 31 words, front-loaded with the key output fields, then flag effects, then the caveat and sibling pointer. No sentence is wasted; each earns its place. The telegraphic style slightly hurts clarity elsewhere, but for size and structure this is exemplary.

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 moderate 4-param report tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers the return-value terrain (readiness, counts, root, coverage gaps), the toggle behaviors, and the reliability caveat even with no output schema. Minor gaps remain — e.g., what 'root' means or how tree/json formats differ — but the schema's enums, defaults, and tool name make these semi-self-evident. Complete enough to call correctly.

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 50% — verbose and diagnostics have descriptions, but project and format do not. The description's mentions of diagnostics and verbose largely restate the schema ('coverage rows', 'Git paths') rather than adding new meaning, and it does nothing for the undocumented project and format parameters. Adequate but no enrichment beyond the structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates concrete outputs ('Project readiness, counts, root, and coverage gaps') and points to the sibling check_index_coverage, so an agent can roughly infer this is an index-status report. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb ('reports', 'returns', 'gets'), leaving the tool's action implicit. It distinguishes from check_index_coverage but does not meet the 'specific verb+resource' bar.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives an explicit alternative directive — 'verify cited paths with check_index_coverage' — telling the agent when to hand off verification to a sibling, plus the 'Best-effort only' caveat that sets expectations for trusting results. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings (e.g., index_repository), but the context is clear enough. Falls just short of a full when/when-not framing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools