Checks if the knowledge base drive is mounted and reports basic index statistics, so you can verify storage and index health before searching or indexing.
Report whether the drive is mounted and basic index statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Report' implies a non-mutating read operation and the sentence discloses the two checks performed, but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or error behavior when the drive is not mounted.
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 wasted text. It states the core behavior immediately and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.
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 simple zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what is reported and does not need to explain return values. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify its relationship to kb_health_check.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty input schema is self-contained.
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 clear verb, 'Report', and names the two things reported: drive mount status and basic index statistics. It is specific about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this status check from the sibling kb_health_check.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as kb_health_check. Usage is only implied by the word 'Report', with no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.