Check how fresh your Mac file index is: see the last sync time, what the index contains, and whether the embedding server responds, so you can confirm semantic and keyword search will return current results.
Check how fresh the user's Mac file index is.
When it was last synced, what's in it, and whether the embedding server answers.
| 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the three things reported back: last sync time, index contents, and embedding-server reachability — the last being a useful dependency health signal an agent would not otherwise know.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the core question and then the specific sub-checks. Minor ambiguity in 'what's in it', but no wasted text.
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 parameterless diagnostic with no output schema, the description adequately signals what comes back. It could add what an agent should do when the embedding server is unreachable, but that is a small gap.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming this is a no-argument check.
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 ('Check') and resource ('the user's Mac file index') with clear scope. It is distinguishable from all siblings, which are search/read tools, though the description never explicitly names them.
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 infers this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check before searching or reading, but there is no statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer when the index looks stale.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.