Reports knowledge base coverage by showing downloaded page counts, indexed token totals, and titles still queued for ingestion.
Knowledge base coverage: how many pages are downloaded, indexed tokens, and how many titles are still queued.
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does describe the returned facts (coverage counts, token counts, pending queue size), which implies a non-mutating read. It stops short of stating read-only status, cost, or freshness/latency of the counts, so it is not fully complete.
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?
A single sentence with a front-loaded label ('Knowledge base coverage') followed by the three reported metrics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it names three concrete quantities. It leaves open whether additional fields are returned and in what shape, a minor gap for a zero-argument stats call.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No misleading param language is present.
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 names the specific resource (knowledge base coverage) and enumerates what is reported: downloaded page count, indexed tokens, and queued titles. That is concrete enough to separate it from search/get_page/queue tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling it differs from.
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?
Usage is implied by the content — an agent would infer 'call this to check indexing/coverage progress' — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer stellaris_queue_next or stellaris_kb_add_page instead, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.