Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
project-code-intelligence

project-code-intelligence

by cvandesande
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

code_intel_status

Check code intelligence state including snapshots, files, records, edges, and embeddings to verify indexing completeness and data integrity.

Instructions

Check code intelligence snapshot, file, record, edge, and embedding state.

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": "code_intel_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collectionNo
repoNo
snapshot_idNo
include_historicalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Check'), but does not explicitly declare side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a 4-param tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with a clear verb and list of resources. It is concise but lacks structure; could benefit from additional sentences or bullet points for clarity. Not overly verbose, but not optimally organized.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and siblings that cover similar ground, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or how it relates to other tools. The agent would need to infer too much.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level details, such as how 'collection', 'repo', 'snapshot_id', or 'include_historical' affect the result. This is a critical gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Check' and lists the resources being checked (snapshot, file, record, edge, and embedding state). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on individual items or specific aspects, but lacks explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_code_intel_record or search_code_intel_semantic. Usage context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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