get_index_statusCheck the SQLite code index status: retrieve the index path, indexed file count, symbol count, and stale file count to monitor index freshness.
Return SQLite index path, indexed file count, symbol count, and stale file count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeStaleReasons | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive read by describing counts returned, but says nothing about behavior when no index exists, error modes, or the cost of the call, and it never explains the stale-reason parameter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed compactly. Slightly list-like, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented boolean parameter, the description partially compensates by enumerating the return fields. It leaves the parameter and failure behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but incomplete.
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?
There is one parameter (includeStaleReasons) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The phrase 'stale file count' hints at staleness but does not explain what the flag does or what it changes in the response.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('SQLite index'), then enumerates the exact payload (index path, indexed file count, symbol count, stale file count). This clearly separates it from mutating siblings like index_workspace and clear_index, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as index_workspace (to build) or clear_index (to reset), and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.