Diagnose index health by retrieving document and chunk counts, source breakdown, and storage status. Filter by tenant ID to inspect a specific workspace.
Return diagnostic index breakdown: document/chunk counts, sources, and storage status.
Scoped to tenant_id when provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal useful behavior: the result includes counts, sources, and storage status, and scoping is conditional on tenant_id. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may exist, or whether special permissions are needed.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core action and return contents are front-loaded, and the scoping note is a separate, clearly stated condition.
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 single-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, the main parameter's role, and the scoping behavior. It lacks usage guidance relative to siblings, but that is already penalized in dimension 2.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that tenant_id is a scoping filter: 'Scoped to tenant_id when provided.' This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default, though it could specify how the scope is applied.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return diagnostic index breakdown' and enumerates concrete contents (document/chunk counts, sources, storage status). This distinguishes it from siblings like health_check and list_sources, which are broader or differently scoped.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings. The only additional sentence, 'Scoped to tenant_id when provided,' describes filtering behavior, not usage context or alternatives. An agent is left to infer when this is the right diagnostic tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.