bc-source-mcp

by glachana

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Cache disk usage and indexed branches

bc_cache_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows total disk usage of the cache, number of indexed branches, object counts, and last fetch or index dates.

Instructions

Reports the total disk usage of the bc-source-mcp cache, the number of indexed branches, their object counts, and last fetch/index dates.

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": "bc_cache_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cache_root`	Yes
`repo_size_mb`	Yes
`worktrees_size_mb`	Yes
`total_size_mb`	Yes
`indexed_branches`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds detail on what is reported (disk usage, branch counts, object counts, dates), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action ('Reports the total disk usage...'), no unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It covers all aspects of a status-reporting tool, including disk usage and branch details, for a simple tool with no parameters.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the specific metrics reported, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it reports total disk usage, number of indexed branches, object counts, and dates. It uses specific nouns (cache, branches, objects) and distinguishes from sibling tools like bc_prune_cache.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. However, the name and description imply it is for inspecting cache status, and siblings like bc_prune_cache serve different purposes, so the usage context is somewhat implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server