Retrieve the current status of the knowledge graph: pending source changes, manifest info, and graph counts to confirm indexing completeness.
현재 원본 변경 계획과 manifest·Graphiti 그래프 개수를 반환한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive). It discloses the exact data returned (change plan and graph counts) and implies no side effects. Given the annotations already cover safety traits, the description adds useful detail about the return payload without contradiction.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no unnecessary wording or structural complexity.
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 simple status-getter with no parameters, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns, and the annotations cover behavioral aspects. No additional context is needed to use the tool correctly.
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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it does not mislead. This dimension is trivially satisfied.
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 that the tool returns the current original change plan and the counts of manifest and Graphiti graphs. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools 'search_graphiti' and 'get_episode_sources', which focus on searching or retrieving episode data.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It is implied that it should be used to check overall status, but no conditions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.