Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-llm-wiki

mcp-llm-wiki

by RickyKleinhempel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Index status

wiki_index_status
Read-only

Check the wiki index's configuration and current state: root directories, embedding model, page/chunk/tag/link counts, and last index time. Use it to verify indexing setup at session start.

Instructions

Show index configuration and state: root directories, embedding model and dimension, counts of pages/chunks/tags/links, and last index time. A good first call in a session.

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": "wiki_index_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by saying 'Show' rather than any mutating verb. It adds behavioral value by specifying what the status call reveals, such as embedding model, dimension, counts, and last index time, which helps the agent anticipate the response without an output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the useful output details and session advice. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates the state fields, communicates the configuration aspects, and provides session-level context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and focuses entirely on the informational output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource ('index configuration and state') and enumerates exactly what is reported: root directories, embedding model/dimension, counts, and last index time. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools by substance, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself.

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?

'A good first call in a session' gives clear situational context for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter status tool the timing guidance is sufficient.

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