Check repository memory initialization and index freshness for a root. Enable verify to re-hash every file when metadata-based freshness needs confirmation.
Return MIMRY initialization and index freshness for a root.
Freshness trusts unchanged file metadata, like git; verify
re-hashes every file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| verify | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait, that default freshness trusts unchanged file metadata (git-like) while 'verify' re-hashes every file, implying a cost/thoroughness tradeoff. It stops short of covering permissions, latency, or what 'initialization' state actually reports.
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?
Two tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, then the freshness/verify caveat follows. No filler, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the key behavioral difference between the two modes.
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 described. The description adequately conveys the mechanism and the verify distinction, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema coverage, and no usage guidance, it is only minimally complete for a tool an agent must decide when to call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'verify' well (re-hashes every file) and mentions 'root', but does not clarify what root refers to or what the default null root means (cwd? inferred?), leaving half the parameter semantics implicit.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('MIMRY initialization and index freshness') with scope ('for a root'), which reads clearly as a read-only status check. It is distinguishable from siblings like mimry_reindex, mimry_refresh, and mimry_init, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: it is a status/diagnostic read, so an agent can infer it is for checking index state. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no routing to alternatives such as mimry_refresh or mimry_init when the index is stale.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.