Check an enrolled repository's health: last indexed, staleness, parse errors, coverage, snapshot count, latest stored hash, and file cap. Identify indexing problems before making changes.
Per-repo health: last indexed, staleness, parse errors, coverage %, snapshot count, latest stored hash, file cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | name of an enrolled repo |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the output fields, which gives a good sense of what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what happens for invalid repo names, or any performance considerations. The absence of side-effect disclosure is less critical for a status tool, but still a gap that prevents a higher score.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Per-repo health') and then enumerates the specific metrics. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is extremely concise while retaining all essential information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a solid list of return fields, giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect. However, it omits potential error behavior (e.g., repo not enrolled) and does not clarify whether results are real-time or cached. For a basic status tool, this is nearly complete, but the missing failure-mode context prevents a perfect score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'repo', which is described as 'name of an enrolled repo'. The tool description does not add much beyond this, but the phrase 'Per-repo' reinforces the parameter's purpose. Since the schema already handles the parameter meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 as providing per-repo health metrics, listing specific data points (last indexed, staleness, parse errors, coverage %, snapshot count, latest stored hash, file cap). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show', the resource and scope are clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'health' by focusing on repository status, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
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. There are no explicit context cues, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. The description implies it is for checking repo health but does not explain when one might prefer 'health' or 'structure' instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.