Index local PDF, Word (.docx), Markdown, and text files into the knowledge base for offline RAG search by LLMs.
Indexes a local directory containing PDFs, Word (.docx), Markdown (.md), or text files into the knowledge base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_path | Yes | Absolute path to the directory containing documents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses supported file types and the destination (knowledge base), but omits key traits such as whether indexing runs asynchronously as a background job (siblings include run_background, get_job_status, list_jobs), whether existing content is replaced or merged, and what permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, input type, and destination with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 an indexing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the likely asynchronous/job behavior and the effect on the knowledge base. It does not clarify whether a job is queued, what is returned, or how existing indexed content is affected, leaving material gaps for correct invocation and follow-up.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter folder_path is fully documented as an absolute directory path. The description reinforces the 'local directory' scope but adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: indexing a local directory of documents into the knowledge base, and it enumerates supported formats (PDF, .docx, .md, text). It is clearly distinct from a generic search or job tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tealkit_crawl_and_index, which likely handles remote content.
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 implies when the tool is used (local documents need indexing) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as tealkit_crawl_and_index. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.