Corpus-KB

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ingest_directory

Ingest all supported code and document files from a directory into the knowledge base, with option to recursively process subdirectories.

Instructions

Ingest all supported files in a directory.

Supports all extensions in CodeChunker.LANGUAGE_MAP plus .md, .rst, .txt.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "directory_path": "<directory_path>"
    },
    "name": "ingest_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recursive`	No
`directory_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling for unsupported files or empty directories, or whether ingestion overwrites existing data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., by explaining the recursive parameter or return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error conditions, and parameter usage, even though an output schema exists. The agent has limited context to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain the two parameters (recursive and directory_path), and the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool ingests all supported files in a directory, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ingest_file and ingest_text which handle individual files or text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ingest_file, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.