Check CodeGraph index health and pending synchronization status for a project path, revealing whether the index is up-to-date and ready for analysis.
Report CodeGraph index health and pending synchronization state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | No | Absolute path to the target project or worktree. Pi fills this with the active cwd when omitted; OMP child agents should pass their exact worktree path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it reports 'health and pending synchronization state', giving some context beyond annotations, but does not describe the output format or any side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a sync). This is adequate given the strong annotations.
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 sentence that states the tool's function without any filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool reports, and the annotations cover behavioral safety. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on what 'health' or 'pending synchronization state' means, but this is not critical for basic usage.
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%, with the single optional parameter projectPath fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('CodeGraph index health and pending synchronization state'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like codegraph_search and codegraph_explore, which focus on querying or navigation rather than status.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it is for checking index status before other operations, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer it over siblings, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.