Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zotero-rag

zotero-rag

by jolapodolszanska
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

index_status

Check how many works and passages are indexed, which embedding model is used, and which collections and top tags are present in a Zotero RAG library.

Instructions

How many works and passages are indexed, with which model, plus collections and top tags.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "index_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but the burden is light for a zero-parameter query: there is nothing to mutate and no auth/rate-limit concerns visible. The description adds which facets are reported (counts, model, collections, tags) but never states outright that it is a read-only, side-effect-free snapshot or how fresh the numbers are.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary payload (counts of works and passages) and then the secondary facets. Every clause corresponds to something the tool actually reports.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration and there are no parameters to document, so the description is nearly sufficient for this simple diagnostic tool. The only missing piece is guidance on when to reach for it versus update_index.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain arguments, and nothing misleading is offered about 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?

States clearly what the tool reports: counts of indexed works and passages, the embedding/index model, plus collections and top tags. The read-only resource ('index status') is identifiable, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling update_index mutation tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the diagnostic/readout call when index state is needed, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement nor any mention of update_index as the alternative for changing the index.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools