Skip to main content
Glama

estado_indice

Monitor the local bulletin index and synchronization status. See indexed counts, pending bulletins, errors, and sync progress to verify when the index is up to date, without accessing the site.

Instructions

Estado del índice local de sumarios y de su sincronización (no toca el sitio).

Devuelve boletines indexados / sin sumarios / con error / rotos (páginas que el sitio respondió con error interno dos veces; no cuentan como pendientes), artículos, rango de fechas, pendientes frente al calendario, última sincronización y el progreso de la actual (hechos, total_planificado, eta_segundos). 'pendientes' cuenta solo boletines desde 2018-01-01 (el inicio por defecto de sincronizar_indice); los anteriores del calendario sin indexar (de sincronizaciones antiguas o con un 'desde' anterior) salen aparte en pendientes_anteriores_2018 y no son trabajo pendiente. Úsalo para seguir una sincronización lanzada con sincronizar_indice. Por origen: indice.por_origen cuenta boletines, artículos y fechas de cada origen ("bomemelilla.es" y "melilla.es", el portal antiguo) e indice.ultimas_sincronizaciones guarda el resumen de la última sincronización de cada uno (ultima_sincronizacion es la de bomemelilla.es). 'sincronizacion' es la de este proceso que está en curso (o la última lanzada), de cualquiera de los dos orígenes, con su 'origen'; indice.sincronizacion_en_curso dice qué origen sincroniza ahora cualquier proceso. Estados de la sincronización: en_curso, completado, cancelado, fallido y bloqueado (el sitio nos bloqueó: 403/429/503 o dos peticiones seguidas sin respuesta; lo indexado se conserva y bome-navaja no le pide nada durante reintentar_tras_segundos, ~75 min por defecto: no vuelvas a sincronizar antes; ver 'mensaje'). En 'mensaje' también aparecen las pausas preventivas (por defecto, como mucho 3 respuestas de error del sitio cada 10 minutos) y la sincronización cuenta los boletines que quedaron rotos en 'rotos'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.4

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'no toca el sitio' (does not touch the site), indicating a safe, read-only operation. It explains what counts as 'pendientes' and what is excluded, describes synchronization states (en_curso, completado, cancelado, fallido, bloqueado), and even mentions the retry behavior (~75 min) and pauses. This is comprehensive transparency about behavior and 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely packed with necessary nuance. It front-loads the core purpose, then branches into details about counts, synchronization states, and per-origin info. Every sentence adds value, clarifying edge cases like the 2018 cutoff and what counts as 'pendientes'. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing essential info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is exceptionally complete for a status tool. It explains the output fields (indexed boletines, without summaries, with error, broken), date ranges, pending counts and their exclusions, per-origin data, synchronization states, and even the meaning of 'mensaje'. It references sibling tool sincronizar_indice, providing context. Since there is no output schema, this description is essential and covers nearly everything an agent needs to correctly interpret and use the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description focuses on output semantics instead, which is useful, but parameter semantics is vacuously satisfied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states specifically: 'Estado del índice local de sumarios y de su sincronización (no toca el sitio)'. It clearly identifies the tool as a status reader for the local index, distinct from action tools like sincronizar_indice and cancelar_sincronizacion. It also outlines the specific data returned, making its scope unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Úsalo para seguir una sincronización lanzada con sincronizar_indice', providing direct guidance on when to use it. It also warns about the 'bloqueado' state, advising not to re-sync before the retry period, which indirectly guides usage of sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read-only tools (e.g., ver_bome), but its purpose is clearly distinct, so the guidance is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.