Scan a vault or folder and store its contents as vector embeddings in Qdrant, enabling retrieval-augmented question answering with cited sources.
Index the vault (source root or sub-path) into Qdrant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| max_files | No | ||
| force_rescan | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not mention side effects, whether indexing is incremental or destructive, external service requirements, long-running behavior, or what happens on repeated calls. The mention of Qdrant is implicit, but not expanded.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary action and target efficiently. It could have said more about parameters or behavior, but as a concise statement it is well-structured.
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 tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not clarify parameter usage, expected results, or operational effects. The agent gets the core purpose but not enough context to confidently invoke the tool in nontrivial cases.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely references 'source root or sub-path' but does not explain the path/source distinction, max_files, or force_rescan. With four undocumented parameters, the agent has no meaningful guidance on how to populate them.
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 ('Index'), a specific resource ('the vault'), and a target ('into Qdrant'), making the operation clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as query, search, delete, list, stats, and config because none of those describe an indexing action.
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?
The intended use is implied by the action: index the vault before using query or search. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are stated, and no exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.