Clarik Mcp Server

clarik_project_index

Build and query a file-to-purpose map for any project to understand what each file does. Index file intentions for instant codebase clarity.

Instructions

Build and query a file-to-purpose map for the project. Understands what each file does.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "clarik_project_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Action: build the index, query it, or list all mappings
`query`	No	Query string when action is "query"
`projectPath`	No	Project root path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey safety and side effects. It mentions building (write) and querying (read) but does not disclose if building modifies files, permissions needed, or error conditions. Insufficient behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences (14 words) that front-load the purpose. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a multi-action tool (build, query, list), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each action does, how to use the 'query' parameter, or what the output looks like. Missing details for effective usage.

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 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Build and query a file-to-purpose map for the project. Understands what each file does.' clearly defines the verb (build/query) and resource (file-to-purpose map), and differentiates from sibling tools like clarik_memory_* and others.

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?

The description implies use for understanding file purposes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.

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