Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jons-mcp-imessage

jons-mcp-imessage

by jonmmease
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_rebuild_progress

Check the status of an ongoing iMessage index rebuild to monitor background processing completion.

Instructions

Get the current progress of a background index rebuild.

Returns: Dictionary with rebuild progress information, or status indicating no rebuild is in progress.

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": "get_rebuild_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with progress information or a status if no rebuild is in progress, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and behavioral output, though it could benefit from more context on usage relative to siblings. No annotations exist to fill gaps, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive description.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

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: 'Get the current progress of a background index rebuild.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('progress of a background index rebuild'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rebuild_search_index' or 'search_index_status', which prevents a score of 5.

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?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'background index rebuild,' suggesting it should be used when monitoring such operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rebuild_search_index' (which might initiate a rebuild) or 'search_index_status' (which could provide general status). No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.

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