Skip to main content
Glama

get_file_watcher_status

Check the status and statistics of the file watcher service to monitor code indexing operations and ensure proper functionality.

Instructions

Get file watcher service status and statistics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function decorated with @mcp.tool(), which registers the tool and executes its logic by delegating to SystemManagementService.get_file_watcher_status().
    @mcp.tool()
    @handle_mcp_tool_errors(return_type='dict')
    def get_file_watcher_status(ctx: Context) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Get file watcher service status and statistics."""
        return SystemManagementService(ctx).get_file_watcher_status()
  • Dataclass defining the output schema/structure for the file watcher status returned by the tool.
    @dataclass
    class FileWatcherStatus:
        """Business result for file watcher status operations."""
        available: bool
        active: bool
        status: str
        message: Optional[str]
        error_info: Optional[Dict[str, Any]]
        configuration: Dict[str, Any]
        rebuild_status: Dict[str, Any]
        recommendations: list[str]
  • Core helper method in SystemManagementService that implements the business logic for retrieving and formatting the file watcher status.
    def get_file_watcher_status(self) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get comprehensive file watcher status with business intelligence.
    
        This is the main business method that orchestrates the file watcher
        status workflow, analyzing system state, providing recommendations,
        and formatting comprehensive status information.
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary with comprehensive file watcher status
        """
        # Business workflow: Analyze system state
        status_result = self._analyze_file_watcher_state()
    
        # Business result formatting
        return self._format_status_result(status_result)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'status and statistics' but doesn't clarify what that includes (e.g., uptime, error counts, performance metrics), whether it's a read-only operation, or if it has any side effects like triggering refreshes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain parameters or return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'status and statistics' entail, any prerequisites), which is a gap since no annotations are provided. This makes it minimally adequate but incomplete for full understanding.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the schema fully covers them.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file watcher service status and statistics'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_settings_info' or 'get_file_summary', which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_settings_info' and 'configure_file_watcher' that might relate to file watcher configuration or status, there's no indication of when this specific status-checking tool is appropriate versus others.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/johnhuang316/code-index-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server