Check whether the RAG index is ready and confirm that the server operates under a read-only security boundary.
Show index readiness and the server's read-only security boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Show' signals a non-mutating status operation, and the described output is clear, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention authentication or access considerations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each part adds distinct information: readiness status and the read-only security boundary.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the two key aspects of the tool's result and is adequate for a simple status check, though it could add a sentence on how this relates to refreshing or searching the vault.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to explain beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are moot and no confusion is possible.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource: index readiness and the server's read-only security boundary. It is not a tautology and distinguishes this status tool from the sibling mutation/lookup tools without needing to open the schema.
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 implies when to use it: when you need index readiness or security-boundary information. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like refresh_vault_index or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.