Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WaveQ

WaveQ

by IshaanDugar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

index_status

Verify cache/index readiness without full VCD parsing or rebuilding. Avoid redundant processing when querying waveform data.

Instructions

Check cache/index readiness without rebuilding and without fully parsing the VCD.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "index_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vcd_pathNoOptional path to .vcd or .vcd.gz
cache_dirNoOptional cache directory

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
statusYes
summaryYes
confidenceNo
limitationsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses non-destructive and efficient behavior, but it could be more specific about the meaning of 'readiness' or any implicit side effects.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with key information and zero filler words, achieving maximal conciseness.

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?

For a simple tool with no required params and an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose and behavioral constraints without needing to explain return values.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'cache/index readiness', and immediately distinguishes from parsing and rebuilding, differentiating it from siblings like build_index.

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 provides clear context by stating what the tool avoids ('without rebuilding and without fully parsing the VCD'), but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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