Check repository memory initialization and index freshness for a root. Optionally re-hash all files to verify instead of trusting file metadata.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait: default freshness trusts unchanged file metadata 'like git' while `verify` re-hashes every file, implying a cost/latency difference. It stops short of confirming read-only safety or any side effects.
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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the mode distinction follows immediately. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.
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-format details are correctly omitted. However, with two undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the definition leaves the `root` argument and the read-only nature of the operation unstated, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 adds real meaning for `verify` (re-hashes every file vs trusting metadata), which is more than the schema gives, but the `root` parameter — including its null default — is never explained.
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 for a root), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like mimry_refresh and mimry_reindex. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer, but the read/status framing is unambiguous.
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 only implied — the agent infers this is the tool to check init state and index freshness. The description does give conditional guidance on the `verify` mode (re-hash every file) versus trusting metadata, but offers no when/when-not framing relative to siblings such as mimry_preflight or mimry_validate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.