Check RAG index state for one or all sources: freshness, chunk count, last update, drift, to decide if a rebuild is needed.
Index state for one or all sources: freshness, chunk count, last update, drift. Check it before considering a rebuild.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | Source to inspect; omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Input schema / properties / source / descriptionPrevious value: -"Source name to inspect (see `list_sources`). Omit to report the status of every configured source."New value: +"Source to inspect; omit for all."Input schema / properties / source / titleRemoved value: -"Source"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_rag_statusArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_rag_statusOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming exactly what the status report includes: freshness, chunk count, last update, and drift. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output fields; the second sentence gives the key use-case. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
For a read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data will be returned, that it can target one or all sources, and when to invoke the tool. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'source' parameter is already well documented as 'Source to inspect; omit for all.' The tool description's 'one or all sources' phrasing mirrors the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 clearly states the tool reports index state for one or all sources, listing the specific data points it returns (freshness, chunk count, last update, drift). It also distinguishes itself from rebuild tools by explicitly framing itself as a pre-rebuild check, making it easy to tell apart from siblings like update_source_index.
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?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Check it before considering a rebuild.' It does not list alternative tools by name, but the rebuild context clearly implies this is the inspection tool rather than the mutation tool. It could be stronger with an explicit exclusion or sibling reference, but the guidance is clear and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.