Check the local store's status: schema version, integrity check result, number of enrolled repositories, and database path. Use this to verify the index is valid and locate the database.
Store-wide health: schema version, integrity check, number of enrolled repos, db path.
| 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?
The description lists the output fields (schema version, integrity check, enrolled repos, db path), giving some transparency about return content. However, it does not disclose whether the integrity check is expensive, whether the tool is read-only, or any side effects, and no annotations are present to fill that gap.
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 phrase 'Store-wide health' followed by a colon and a list of relevant items. Every word contributes, no filler, and it is easy to scan.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool does and what information it provides. It could be more complete by addressing potential overlap with siblings, but the tool is simple enough that this is minor.
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?
With zero parameters, the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by enumerating the health data returned, which is the only semantic content needed for this parameterless tool. Baseline 4 applies.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function as a store-wide health check, listing specific items like schema version, integrity check, enrolled repos, and db path. This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like structure or diff, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'status' which could be similar.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'status' or 'locate'. The description implies it is for overall health, but there is no explicit mention of scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.