Lists recent indexing runs for a vault, showing what was scanned, when, duration, and errors to audit or troubleshoot index history.
List recent index runs for a vault — what was scanned, when, how long, errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| vault | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0-rc.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the payload contents (scan scope, timestamps, duration, errors), but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or that the list is capped.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then the returned fields. No filler words; every clause carries information.
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 usefully previews the returned fields, which is the right move. However, for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no guidance on result limits or ordering, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently beyond the simplest call.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies vault scoping via 'for a vault' but never explains the 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 200) or what the vault string should be, leaving both partially or wholly undocumented.
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 and resource ('List recent index runs') with the scope qualifier 'for a vault', and enumerates the content returned (what was scanned, when, duration, errors). It does not compare itself against siblings like audit_log or vault_stats, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
No indication of when to reach for this tool versus audit_log, vault_stats, or start_shadow_index, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the semantics of listing index runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.