Skip to main content
Glama
renyi-lang

Renyi

Official
by renyi-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

chunks

Fetch the served project as JSON Lines records for embedding-based retrieval, optionally narrowed to one module or the language's own documents and library.

Instructions

The served project as chunks for retrieval by embedding, as renyi index --chunks writes them: JSON Lines, a first line with the project, the revision, the toolchain and the counts, then one object per module and per definition with id (the SHA-256 of its text, which changes exactly when the text does), text (a header from the record, then the canonical source) and metadata (the map's id and text hash, module, package, kind, effects, edges, location). The host embeds; the toolchain only writes. module narrows it to one module; language gives the language's own documents instead (the cheat sheet's and the reference's sections, the library's modules and public declarations, the same shape), for a host that embeds the language beside the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moduleNoa module name, to give only that module's chunks (with `language`: a library module such as `std.http`, or `cheatsheet` or `reference`)
languageNotrue for the language's documents and library instead of the served project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the JSON Lines format, the header line's contents, the per-object shape (id/text/metadata), the SHA-256 stability guarantee of `id`, and the key split that the host embeds while the toolchain only writes. It omits error behavior, size limits, and permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The content is dense inside a single sprawling run-on sentence with nested parentheses, so the essential fact (JSON Lines chunks of the project, host embeds) is buried rather than front-loaded. Every clause is informative, but the structure makes it hard to parse and would benefit from being split.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the return format and parameter behavior. What is missing is the routing context needed to pick it among eleven siblings, which is a real gap for an agent deciding between this, `project_map`, and `definition`.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the `language`-plus-`module` interaction. The description restates that `module` narrows to one module and that `language` switches to language documents, adding reassurance but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete resource and scope: the served project emitted as chunks for embedding, in the exact form `renyi index --chunks` produces. That is specific enough to separate it from `project_map` or `definition`, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast and the opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison with alternatives like `project_map`, `definition`, or `library_lookup`, which an agent must choose between. The only usable signal is the `--chunks` CLI parity note and the two narrowing flags, which describe mechanics rather than selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools