Check the status of the Everything indexing service to confirm it is operational and ready for file searches.
Check Everything status
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": "everything_health"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the name of the tool in sentence form ('Check Everything status') and provides no information about side effects, return values, or operational implications. This is essentially a tautology.
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 highly concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It is appropriately sized for a simple health-check tool with no parameters. However, it could have added a note about the output or purpose without becoming verbose.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'status' means or what the tool returns. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's behavior or interpret its results. Contextual completeness is poor despite the tool's low complexity.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. According to the guidelines, 0 params warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics absent any parameters.
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 'Check Everything status' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a health/status check. It distinguishes from sibling tools like everything_search and everything_count by focusing on status rather than data retrieval. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what 'status' encompasses.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for issuing a health check. It simply states an action without situating it relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.