minirag-mcp

by sfrangulov

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

status

Report configuration and index status. Works even when configuration is invalid.

Instructions

Report configuration and index status. Works even when configuration is invalid.

Always includes version. When configuration is valid, also includes roots, dbPath, model, hybridWeight, and chunkCount/sourceCount (both present on every call, 0 before anything is indexed) — or, if opening the index itself fails, indexError instead of the counts. When configuration is invalid, includes configError instead, and every other tool raises an error referencing it until the configuration is fixed.

chunkScheme is the chunking scheme the index is being written with. staleChunkCount counts chunks still stored under an older scheme — when it is above zero, schemeWarning explains that those chunks need a re-sync to be rebuilt.

ocr names the OCR engine this install can use, or is "unavailable" when the optional extra is missing — scanned PDFs and images cannot be indexed then, and ocrHint says what to install.

labels, present only when the corpus has a classify.toml: its facets, value descriptions and document counts, unlabelled and uncertain counts, and the model state — or the file's error.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the always-present version field, the valid-config field set, the two failure branches (indexError, configError), and the cascading effect on every other tool. It also explains staleChunkCount/schemeWarning and the OCR 'unavailable' state, which are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key resilience guarantee, then organized by state (valid config, invalid config, chunk scheme, OCR, labels) — each paragraph earns its place. It is on the long side for a zero-param tool and spends several sentences enumerating return fields that an output schema already exposes.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given a zero-param tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers return shapes, degraded states, and cross-tool implications. The one gap is sibling differentiation — nothing tells the agent why to pick this over sync_status, which is the remaining ambiguity risk.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its space on return-value semantics, which is the right use of that budget.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report configuration and index status', with no parameters to interpret. It's clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling sync_status, which an agent could easily confuse with a generic status report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Works even when configuration is invalid' and 'every other tool raises an error referencing it' suggest calling this to diagnose config failures. There's no explicit 'use this when' clause and no routing guidance versus sync_status or the ingest/query siblings.

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

Deploy Server