Reports whether knowledge base artifacts are built, their source version, and generation time; warns if a rebuild is needed without rebuilding.
Informa que artefactos de la knowledge base estan construidos, de que version provienen y cuando se generaron.
El servidor es de solo lectura: no reconstruye nada, solo avisa si hace falta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the server does not rebuild anything, it only reports. That 'no side effects even when triggered' nuance goes beyond the annotation set.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the read-only caveat is placed efficiently. No wasted text, though the second sentence is more reassurance than specification.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is reported (build state, version, generation time). That is adequate for a simple status tool; only the response_format parameter is left unexplained.
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 (response_format, enum markdown/json) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing documentation.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it reports that knowledge-base artifacts are built, which version they come from, and when they were generated. That is distinguishable from the search/list/describe siblings, though it never names them 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?
It implies the usage context ('avisa si hace falta' / warns if something is needed) and clarifies this is the tool to consult for state rather than to rebuild. But it gives no explicit when-to-use rule or comparison against the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.