Returns the canonical semantic digest and state metadata for an index generation, letting AI coding agents verify index state before querying local repository memory.
Return the canonical semantic digest and state metadata for an index generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return" weakly implies a read, but it never confirms read-only safety, describes side effects, or explains what the digest/state metadata actually represents. For a sole-sentence definition with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so there is no waste. It is under-specified rather than bloated, and a one-line tool description leaves the reader without actionable detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, an undocumented parameter at 0% coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 single "root" parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The phrase "for an index generation" hints at a scoping argument but never explains what root selects or what its default (null) means, leaving the only parameter undocumented.
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?
It supplies a verb ("Return") and a resource ("canonical semantic digest and state metadata for an index generation"), which is more than a tautology. However, "canonical semantic digest" and "index generation" are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like mimry_plan_digest or mimry_status without guessing.
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 statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative such as mimry_status or mimry_plan_digest. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.