Check whether a project's Context Grove knowledge source is available before AI coding agents read or act. Confirms readiness of the Git-versioned Markdown knowledge base.
Check whether the project's Context Grove knowledge source is available. / Verifique se a fonte de conhecimento Context Grove do projeto está disponível.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read-only availability probe against a named source ('Context Grove knowledge source'), which is the key behavioral trait, but it says nothing about what an unavailable result implies, latency, auth, or error behavior.
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 English sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The appended Portuguese translation is redundant duplication for most agents, but it does not obscure the primary statement.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the check returns (boolean? status object? error message?). It does not, leaving an agent unable to know how to interpret or act on the result — a real gap for a health-check tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 per the rubric. The empty schema is consistent with the description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether the project's Context Grove knowledge source is available.' An agent can distinguish it from knowledge_catalog/read/search as a status probe, though it never names those siblings for contrast.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a preflight availability check, but the description never says when to call it (before search? on error?) or what to do if it reports unavailable. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.