Retrieve the full list of indexed codebases in the global database, allowing you to inspect all available indexes at a glance.
List every indexed root in the global database.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "roots"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only list operation but does not disclose return format, potential volume, ordering, authentication requirements, or any other side effects. The minimal sentence offers little beyond the literal action.
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 eight-word sentence that states the action directly, with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, scoring high for conciseness.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose but leaves the term 'indexed root' undefined and does not specify the output structure. However, for such a simple operation, this is a minor gap, so the description is mostly complete.
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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add semantically. Per the rubric, 0 parameters merits a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the operation itself rather than parameter details.
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 'List' with a clear resource 'every indexed root in the global database.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like search, index, and stats by focusing on enumeration of roots rather than querying or modifying them.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search, index, stats). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.