Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codebase-memory-mcp

codebase-memory-mcp

by DeusData
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

index_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a codebase's index readiness, counts, watch state, and coverage gaps; optionally report diagnostics and Git paths for debugging.

Instructions

Project readiness, counts, root, watch state, coverage gaps, and doc_links (doc-comment references: MENTIONS edges, unresolved by reason). diagnostics adds coverage rows; verbose adds Git paths. Best-effort only; verify cited paths with check_index_coverage.

Input 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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a genuine reliability caveat: results are 'Best-effort only' and cited paths should be verified. It also discloses that doc_links reports unresolved references by reason, which is behavioral context beyond 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content list is front-loaded and the second sentence packs two parameter effects plus the verification caveat without padding. The parenthetical defining doc_links is dense but earns its place; structure is efficient though slightly compressed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by enumerating the reported fields and doc_links semantics. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 50%; verbose and diagnostics are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates their effect (coverage rows, Git paths). It adds nothing for the undocumented 'format' parameter (tree/json) or the required 'project' parameter, so it neither compensates for the gap nor meaningfully exceeds the schema.

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 enumerates the specific content returned (readiness, counts, root, watch state, coverage gaps, doc_links), which lets an agent recognize this as an index status/report tool. There is no explicit verb, but the resource and output scope are concrete rather than tautological, and it implicitly differentiates itself from check_index_coverage.

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?

It names one alternative ('verify cited paths with check_index_coverage') and a caveat ('Best-effort only'), giving partial routing guidance. However, it never states when to reach for index_status versus index_repository, list_projects, or compare_graphs, so usage is largely implied.

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