Skip to main content
Glama

Corpus status

corpus_status

Check the presence and metadata of generated documentation artifacts to verify migration analysis readiness for HeroUI v3 beta migration projects.

Instructions

Checks the presence and metadata of generated documentation artifacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the corpus_status tool, which checks for the presence of generated corpus files and computes metrics for them.
    async () => {
      const files = await listGeneratedFiles();
      const expected = [
        "heroui-v2-llms-components.txt",
        "heroui-v2-llms-full.txt",
        "heroui-v2-index.json",
        "heroui-v3-llms-components.txt",
        "heroui-v3-llms-full.txt",
        "heroui-v3-index.json",
      ];
      const missing = expected.filter((n) => !files.includes(n));
    
      const indexes: Record<string, any> = {};
      for (const v of ["v2", "v3"]) {
        const path = `heroui-${v}-index.json`;
        if (files.includes(path)) {
          try {
            indexes[v] = JSON.parse(await readGeneratedFile(path));
          } catch {
            indexes[v] = null;
          }
        }
      }
    
      // compute basic metrics for text outputs if the index lacks them
      const metrics: Record<string, any> = {};
      for (const v of ["v2", "v3"]) {
        const versionMetrics: any = {};
        for (const fname of [`heroui-${v}-llms-components.txt`, `heroui-${v}-llms-full.txt`]) {
          if (files.includes(fname)) {
            try {
              const txt = await readGeneratedFile(fname);
              const pages = (txt.match(/<page\s+url=/g) || []).length;
              const bytes = Buffer.byteLength(txt, "utf8");
              versionMetrics[fname] = { pages, bytes };
            } catch { }
          }
        }
        metrics[v] = versionMetrics;
      }
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Corpus files: ${files.join(", ")}\n` +
              (missing.length ? `Missing: ${missing.join(", ")}\n` : "All expected files present.\n")
          }
        ],
        structuredContent: {
          ready: missing.length === 0,
          missingFiles: missing,
          generatedFiles: files,
          indexes,
          metrics,
        }
      };
  • src/server.ts:333-339 (registration)
    Registration of the corpus_status tool.
    server.registerTool(
      "corpus_status",
      {
        title: "Corpus status",
        description: "Checks the presence and metadata of generated documentation artifacts.",
        inputSchema: {}
      },
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It indicates the read-only nature through 'checks' and mentions inspecting 'presence and metadata,' which hints at the return structure. However, it omits details about return format, caching behavior, or performance characteristics expected of a status endpoint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single efficient sentence with zero redundancy. Information density is high with no filler words, and the scope (presence + metadata) is clearly stated upfront.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter tool but incomplete regarding output contract. Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally specify the return structure (e.g., object with exists boolean and metadata fields) rather than just saying it 'checks' these things.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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?

Provides specific verb 'checks' and clear resource 'generated documentation artifacts' (defining the 'corpus'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_project or analyze_file that might also inspect project state.

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?

Contains no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check corpus status versus scanning the project or analyzing specific files). No prerequisites or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sctg-development/heroui-migration-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server